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."
...welcome our Diebold voting machine overlords.
We're the only state that can lock you up for life without a trial; all it takes is a judge to agree that there's a risk you could offend again. In other words, you serve your sentence, and then an unappealable, arbitrary decision, by one guy, can have you spend the rest of your life in jail. Our laws in this state are so bad that the European Union refuses to extradite people here in several cases. I am not surprised that they just basically crapped in the pool of civil rights and then shrugged and went on with their business.
We've convicted people of DUI for walking down the street. Seriously. It was upheld on the basis that he could have gotten in a motor vehicle, because he had his car keys on him. Bonus: The car didn't even run.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I'm of the mindset that even a little alcohol in your system should keep you off the road. Alcohol affects people in different ways, what may be fine for you isn't fine for me. If you wan to have a drink, don't plan on driving.
I suspect that the judge placed some emphasis on the cost of re-trying all of the cases that are based on this piece of equipment, in light of its obsolescence moving foreword. As a minnesotan, I don't necessarily approve, but I would expect that the majority of those covicted with this equipment truely were drunk.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
No, I have no interest in having drunks driving on our streets and doing even more harm to society than they already do, but application of law must not be arbitrary and capricious: it's the prosecution's job to show that the evidence is reliable "beyond a reasonable doubt." If the software does not meet that criterion then you don't have valid evidence, just as you don't have valid evidence if your "eye witness" wasn't there at the time.
PF
If you smoke out and drive, what happens? You go 10mph under the speed limit and still miss your exit. Then you spend 15 minutes lost in a cloverleaf trying to turn around. Then you drive at 10mph under the limit and you STILL miss your exit, so you end up at a 7-11 getting some Soda pop and a sack of chips and chocolate bars but it's too hard to figure out the change, so you let the guy behind the counter do it, and then you pig out enough that your head clears long enough that you DON'T miss your exit and you end up watching Tim and Eric's Awesome Show Good Job! or Wonder Showzen reruns until you fall asleep in the barcalounger.
True story.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
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.
Want to know why drunk driving is so endemic in the United States?
Here's a hint:
most bars in the US are in towns and suburbs where they are not served by public transit, AND, the are required to have parking spots for all their customers.
If ever there was a business that should be forbidden to have customer parking, it's a bar.
Of all the things about liquor laws in the US, this is the most insane.
Who knew they still made software for buggies?
Known bad device is the sole determiner of guilt/innocence, as its results cannot be challenged, and pending cases based on potentially bad evidence are allowed to go forward, with a bonus that the devices are still in use in some jurisdictions. WTH, Minnesota?
its not that hard.
drink at home.
get a designated driver
take a cab home or the bus or he train
if you're drunk and in your car and get caught i have no sympathy for you.
How did we come to a place where a judge can simply decide a machine, which has been proven unreliable, is in fact reliable? How will these people sleep at night knowing they are punishing people who were innocent? Is our whole society run by sociopaths now?
We've convicted people of DUI for walking down the street
We? I don't get it. Are you implying that you, yourself, are responsible for this injustice? How can that be, when you have just declared your moral opposition to it? Were you in favor of it at one time, and since have flip-flopped your position?
When some potlicker tried to follow me up my driveway, at 2 AM, because "it was too dark to see my tail lights" he was tested at the scene and then tested again "downtown" Registering 0.17
Apprehending officers can also, and often do, use some video and audio at the scene. This guy, rocking back and forth on his feet, because he can hardly keep his balance, was convinced it was all the other driver's fault. Put that on video for the judge to see.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
...a ruling done to prevent a crap-storm of appeals and further contested DUI charges. I've seen such things happen before, where the ruling has less to do with evidence, and more to do with all the trouble that ruling on such evidence would cause. How much of a headache for law enforcement will it be if their DUI test proves flawed? It's a good thing to consider, even if it probably shouldn't affect the ruling...kind-of a "catch-.22."
Let's suppose that, for the sake of argument, we know that someone exactly six foot created a crime.
You have six subjects. You get a measuring tape. One person measures exactly six foot.
He's convicted. We find out 2 years later that the measuring stick was two inches off.
According to this the person couldn't appeal based on the fact that the measuring stick was incorrect.
Both are tools. The only difference is one is an electronic, software based tool. Of course, this would mean that the judge didn't think about the system like it was magic.
Most if not all states will lock up mentally ill people if they are a danger to themselves or others. The difference is that it's not "for life" but rather just until the next hearing, which may be anywhere from less than a week for a person just entering the mental-health-court system to more than a year away for those who have obvious, chronic, problems that can't be sufficiently treated to allow the person to be released. The other difference is that it's to a locked mental hospital not to a prison.
Also, many if not most states treat "highly dangerous sex offenders" basically the same way as MN under "civil commitment" laws. There may be a trial, but it's typically a civil trial and by the time the state decides they want to keep you locked up, they've got enough evidence to convince a jury to the level required in a civil case. In some states this is for a period of time and they have to do a new trial but the reality is, once you've been locked up under civil commitment, you likely won't get out until your health deteriorates from old age enough that even if you still hold dangerous attitudes you won't be a danger to the public if released.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Is this an elected or appointed judge?
He ruled on the case as if he was elected.
Now what does a six-year hold on a DUI case do?
How many cases will just be dropped to clear the load?
The Administrative License Suspension/Revocation maxes out at 1y for the 3rd time.
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)
I see nothing wrong with having a pint and driving home. Even several pints, if I'm there for several hours.
Caveat--I'm a 6' 200lb male. My 95lb female friend may require different standards.
attorneys say to request a blood or urine test and not a Breathalyzer test.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Breathalyzer-Test-For-DUI---Is-it-Your-Best-Bet?&id=3701454
IS EFNET, AND YOU and reports and First, you have to Users. This is crisco or lube. gains 8arket share *BSD is dying Yet = 1400 NetBSD
After one rather scary incident driving home from a brewery many many years ago, I made the decision to never have more than one drink outside of the house under any circumstances. Bonus: The money I saved from not buying pricey drinks downtown has permitted me to stock a full bar at home.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
Habitual drunk driver is found in his car, with the keys, drunk.... How about we enact a law to get rid of stupid people. That would make me happy.
In most normal places they also take a blood test if your breath test is positive.
Regardless of the outcome, defense lawyers used the case effectively to pressure the prosecutor by creating uncertainty.
The problem I see with the "logic" that anyone drinking enough alcohol to cause slight impairment while driving should be arrested and punished is what could (should?) follow if you really believe it.
For example... Cars with partially worn tires are less capable of stopping or maneuvering out of the way of obstacles than cars with new tires. For that matter, there's very clear evidence that simply choosing one brand/model of ties over another leads to differences in a vehicle's performance -- even when all tires in question are brand new. Should we start making arrests when someone has those cheap Asian tires on their vehicle, that test results show have less traction than others? Should someone be found criminally at fault if they injure someone in a car accident and it's found their tires were really close to needing replacement?
I think as a society, we're so eager now to punish drunk driving, we've gone towards practically a "zero tolerance" policy, without much regard for reality. Yes, drinking and driving is a "bad idea" on the whole. But like most things, the majority of people are able to use common sense, deciding for themselves if they're safe to drive or not. The ones who can't (even when others around them express their concern) are the ones who pose the real threat.
With practically all other aspects of operating motor vehicles, we seem to be accepting of the idea that there's a "reasonable level of tolerance" for conditions that hamper a driver from driving optimally. We have state inspections in place to keep dangerous cars off the road until they're fixed, but we only require they be checked once every couple years or so. People driving around with a headlight burnt out may get a ticket, but cars with dimmer headlights than the norm are usually ignored as "good enough". A tired driver is generally NOT arrested, though we know they're likely just as much of a hazard on the roads as someone who drank a beer or two recently.
I'm of the mindset that even a little alcohol in your system should keep you off the road. Alcohol affects people in different ways, what may be fine for you isn't fine for me. If you wan to have a drink, don't plan on driving.
Then please don't drink any orange juice, which can get to up to 0.4% alcohol (around 1 proof).
Once the cop decides he's going to arrest you for a DUI, its pretty irrelevant what data he does or doesn't collect or how its collected. Unless you're up for spending six to eight months of your life and about $15,000+ to put on a jury trial (and who knows what a jury is going to do), you're pretty much guilty on the spot. Its all well constructed legislation that was passed literally without opposition, as no politician is interested in sticking up for drunk drivers.
Further, in many states (like California) you're charged criminally AND as a separate administrative process by the department of motor vehicles. The DMV portion in CA simply requires that there be sufficient evidence of guilt and is independent of whatever happens in court on the criminal aspect. The DMV considers a police report with the arresting officers opinion that you were incapable of driving as sufficient evidence, without a need for a breathalyzer result. Further, some people are convicted of a dui with a blood alcohol level below .08, again because the arresting officer felt based on his observations that the driver was drunk.
The "cake" in this situation is the truth about the dividing line between social drinking and drunk driving. I think most people would agree that having a drink or two after work or with dinner is social drinking and should be legal if one should decide to drive home. However many people would be legally drunk on two drinks the size and composition of what many bars and restaurants pour.
Throw in the pressure to make DUI arrests, the ridiculous amount of fines and fees that fill wallets, the lack of any sort of sympathy or lobby effort to make things fair and reasonable, and then leave the 'social or drunk' decision to the cop...
So its advisable to stop worrying about the cockamamie systems they use to 'prove' whether you were too drunk to drive, those don't really matter much. Understand that there is no such thing as 'social drinking and driving', that by speeding a little or failing to stop completely at a stop sign can easily lead to a DUI arrest even if you haven't had that much to drink, and that arrest will be fairly devastating in terms of financial and personal impacts.
If pulled over and you've been drinking and there's a chance you're over the legal limit, REFUSE ALL FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS. You still have to get out of the car, if asked. Invoke your right to remain silent and KEEP SILENT.
Source: IAAL
I was #8 in the jury pool for a DUI case. They were empaneling 12 jurors so I was going to be on the jury unless the prosecution or the defense chose to strike me. During voire dire the prosecutor asked a general question along the lines of "how do you feel about DUI cases?" I raised my hand, explained that I was a computer programmer, and said that I was skeptical of the reliability of breathalyzers because of articles I had read in trade journals concerning buggy breathalyzer software. I was not picked to be on the jury.
The traffic laws are a very sore spot for me as well. The types who go around with a "cops are heroes!" attitude get under my skin, when they actually fall for the propaganda about "we're only issuing tickets because we care about your safety".
To be honest, I'm a person who has gone my entire life with probably no more than 5 traffic tickets (including a state trooper who cited me for driving 65 in a 55MPH zone on an interstate, back when I was 18 -- and that may have been one of the only really "fair" ones I think I received). So it's not a case of me constantly getting tickets for speeding or reckless driving and having a chip on my shoulder.
I just see the entire thing as little more than tax collection / revenue generation, under a guise of performing a public service. Any time an excuse can be made to increase the financial penalties for a given violation, they jump on it, regardless of its actual effectiveness. (Just a few weeks ago, I made a road trip from St. Louis to the Chicago area, and I must have gone through at LEAST 10 different "road construction zones" with signs announcing fines would be doubled or tripled for exceeding the posted speed limits. In about 9 out of 10 of those zones, there was no actual construction taking place. In a few cases, I saw a pickup truck with one or two workers at a site, but they appeared to be there only to double-check on some details of work already completed, or ?? It was abundantly clear that there was no pressing reason to slow traffic down from the 65MPH limit to as little as 35MPH (creating big traffic backups) -- and in fact, most people elected to ignore the reduced speed demands because it was so clearly pointless. Still, a cop could easily decide to sit at any one of those work zones and issue BIG $ fines -- and drivers would have no recourse.
The whole "game" of cops trying to hide so they can catch a speeder is insulting, as well. If they're *really* doing all of this to "protect and serve" as their logo always claims -- wouldn't you think they'd want their police vehicle to be very clearly visible to all of the traffic? Certainly, you wouldn't use an *unmarked* car, where someone might not even be sure they were legitimately being pulled over!
Law and Order should do an episode where a DUI is being contested. The defense could call a witness who has had a couple of beers and use a handful of breathalyzers from different manufacturers and models to show they all get different results.
I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
Since when is what's considered legal actually correct in real world scenarios?
A bug is a bug, unless the company at fault can produce evidence that the bugs could not of caused a misread then I think the DUI's should be overturned.
I won't speak to capital punishment rates, since in many US states capital punishment is a de facto life sentence.
However, America was no higher than 5th in executions per capita in 2011.
The United States carried out 43 of the world's 676 or more officially-acknowledged executions last year.
Some countries with higher totals:
* Iraq - 68
* Iran - 360 or more
* Saudi Arabia - 82
Some smaller countries with higher rates than America:
* Yemen - 41 or more executions
Source:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/news/death-penalty-2011-alarming-levels-executions-few-countries-kill-2012-03-27
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
if the only state right in question wasn't the right to enforce slavery, then you might have an idea. As it is, I really doubt it, as you apparently haven't even read the southern explanations.
always think you can do whatever you want and expect everyone else to suffer the consequences?
is asking a question that puts you in a bad light being intellectually dishonest. The truth of the matter is that it is self-important idiots like you with your delusions of adequacy that are pseudo-intelectually dishonest.
if you actually acted like you claim the parent poster should, you'd be too busy being outraged to read slashdot. Sounds a lot more likely that you are upset that everyone else doesn't share your own self-centered goals. I had a four-year old like that.
The only reason you get hauled into the police dept and told to blow in the machine is when you've already failed the field sobriety test or are obviously under the influence. The machine is just there confirm the circumstantial evidence. All the prosecutor needs it to have the cop testify that the person appeared under the influence and failed the field sobriety test (another test that generally stands up in court).
The courts are reluctant to through out the breathalizer for the same reason they won't toss out radar/lidar guns. The know they aren't foolproof but they accept that the false positive rate is very low.
However, America was no higher than 5th in executions per capita in 2011.
Well, that makes it perfectly all right then. As long as there are a few countries that are worse then there is nothing for us to worry about.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
See mom, I'm not the dumbest kid on the bus!
It's not a very long bus, though.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
In 2000 I was at my Brother in laws New year’s party (Deputy Sherriff) , hammered out of my gourd, we all got tested for fun, and I blew 5 greens in a row. My wife, who had not been drinking, but had given me a kiss when the ball dropped, was blowing red.
Made me glad to be an American.
I was calling someone out on SEVERELY misrepresenting the facts.
I don't want someone falsely assuming America kills at the same rate as Iran (America would have to execute 1200 in 2011 to match Iran's rate), Saudi Arabia (would need to be over 900), or Yemen (would need to be over 480).
43 is a small fraction of these numbers.
So even if we are 5th, we are a long, long way behind the countries in the top 4.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
If there is a police car for every location where driving fast is dangerous, making them visible is a good strategy. People will slow down when seeing the police car, defusing the danger.
Now for better or worse, in most potentially dangerous situations no police car is visible for the simple reason that no police car is there. So the most important situation that you want to condition drivers for is the situation of a speed limit without a police car in sight.
It would be even better if one could condition them on potentially dangerous situations, but people learn mostly from damage, and if the damage is in the form of a speeding ticket rather than killing or maiming yourself and others, it comes cheaper for society.