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."
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.
Lame frosty.
Also, fuck this sociopathy of a "justice system". There is no consistency. They did not throw out these convictions only to save on paperwork. They should have been thrown out.
Also, if everyone exercised their right to a fair trial, then this bullshit criminal legal system would collapse. You'd see a lot fewer trumped up charges and minor offenses would be handled far more sanely. This "justice system" is like an abusive parent with a loud and obnoxious toddler.
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.
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.
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.........
Who knew they still made software for buggies?
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?
What if you're well under the legal limit and perfectly capable of driving safely but some machine says you're extremely drunk?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Traffic laws are a sore spot for me. It pisses me off that a cop will sit on the side of a 6 lane road (3 lanes each way) ticketing people for going faster than the 60km/h speed limit on a divided road with no crosswalks (at the crest of a hill no less). Meanwhile, nearby there is a playground zone with kids playing, and people zip through there, but no cop in sight.
I think that police should focus on areas where they can actually improve public safety, specifically, school and playground zones. It is very, very, very rare to see a police officer ticketing people speeding or passing in a playground zone. Dont get me started on automated systems (multinova, red light cams, speed on green).
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
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
I suspect your thought process would be much easier to parse if you knew how to spell, but I digress...
In other words, actual justice is just too darn expensive? As far as piss-poor excuses go, that one ranks pretty fucking high.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
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.
And I'm sure that the minority who weren't drunk will be satisfied to know that you think "the majority were drunk" is good enough reason not to overrule their convictions.
Is this an elected or appointed judge?
He ruled on the case as if he was elected.
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?
What, like the test where the cop waves the pen in front of your face and says "yeah he's drunk, because I said so." Or the one where you blow into the machine and it comes back saying that your body is 5% alcohol, and the judge doesn't see a problem there?
In other words, you're saying that it's OK to have buggy testing equipment, because field tests?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
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)
Let's make this a drinking game. When someone posts an example of where Americans gave up freedoms for a bad reason we all drink. I'll start:
9/11.
Look, I said I don't approve
Then get fucking outraged over this miscarriage of justice.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The people are responsible for anything done by the state, QED.
...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
In other words, we are not responsible for the actions of our government: We are responsible for stopping them when they piss us off or endanger our lives.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Why do I get the sinking feeling this particular AC falls into the 'under 25' age group?
Perhaps because you are ageist.
With the current life expectancy in the US (a hopefully appropriate assumption in a thread about minnesota) of 78.1 according to google and an assumption that nobody under the age of 13 has the patience or interest to hang out on a tech discussion site, you are guessing that a particular AC falls within (25-13) / (78-13) ~ 18% of the pool of candidate ages. To level that out to be a reasonable guess, we would need to assume that those under 25 are 50%/22% ~ 2.8 times more likely to fail to understand social responsibility. That's quite a gap, to assume we are almost 3 times as likely to eschew social responsibility.
While I certainly have no data, this seems to even be counter to largely accepted stereotypes of youth. I thought we were supposed to be bleeding-heart liberal hippies, letting our idealism prevent us from getting anything done? Stereotypically, the gray-haired investment banker in the fancy suit is the one who rejects social responsibility.
Why do I get the feeling you're in the "definitely over 25" age group? Hint: It's because paint us with such a broad stroke that clearly you have already dichotomized the world into "you all" (the "adults") and "us" (the "children" - many of whom have mortgages/rents, bills, responsibilities, retirement accounts, careers and credit histories by the way).
Except that the last time somebody actually tried to do that, we ended up in a civil war. Slavery was only the excuse. The issues of state's rights went out the window when the Union won, and there's the whole business of the wholesale looting laughingly refered to as 'the Reconstruction' that I won't even get into. End result? A stronger federal government contrary to the beliefs and intents of the Founding Fathers. The point of a weak fed was to keep massive government stupidity on a local or state-wide level, not to allow it to infect and infest itself across the entire country.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
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.
Complacent assholes like you are what's wrong with this world. You can get outraged over every miscarriage of justice, and you should. If more people did, we'd be able to do something about them. Authoritarian judges like this would fear for their jobs... at the least.
AC upstream was right. You deserve to be falsely convicted of a crime. I will enjoy not getting worked up about that injustice.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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!
My children will be home schooled until they are old enough to understand the importance of education and have learned how to learn on their own. At that point, they will be allowed to decide for themselves whether they want to attend public schools, a private school if I can afford it, or continue home schooling. This is one of many decisions my wife and I discussed and agreed upon *before* deciding to marry; of course, the vast majority of couples who marry don't take the realities of the future into consideration, so decisions like this are set aside "until they have to be made" and one or both parties gives in, not wanting to argue, and the kids end up in an "educational" system that doesn't teach them anything useful (amongst many other "easy way out" decisions that get made when a couple simply can't agree on things), or they end up in a single parent home.
I barely graduated; not because I didn't understand the material, not because I had no desire to succeed, but because I was spending my time learning things above and beyond what was being taught in the classroom, rather than doing the classwork. I passed tests, I aced midterms and finals, but I was too busy, after having run through the provided textbooks in the first month or so of the class, seeking new material and learning new things that were *not* being taught in class, to waste my time on the classwork. This is a direct resuly of being taught, at a young age, how to learn on my own; and it has been instrumental in my success. The more I think about it, the more I also see a strong correlation between the actual ability to learn independently and the ability and willingness to take responsibility for one's own life and actions. That's what's greatly lacking in the younger generations and, to some extent, ours, as well.
I know I've touched on several seemingly unrelated topics in this post and most readers are going to think I'm just all over the place. That's fine, all I ask is that you step back and take a look at the big picture, I'm probably not as far out there as you think I am.
In order for a person to be willing or able to take responsibility for something, they must first understand that thing. In order for someone to understand something, they must be able to learn; if they can only learn when things are explained to them, rather than on their own, then that thing must be explained in terms they already understand. We're breeding generations now that do not know how to learn, do not understand their own actions, and take no responsibility for those actions, or their own lives, as a result. It's a vicious circle that can only get worse, unless those of us who see it happening and are willing and able to take responsibility, who see what's happening, get off our asses and do something about it. That said, I'm not sure what I can do, beyond simply not raising my own kids that way and writing my congresscritters to beg for change; if anyone has any workable ideas, I'd love to hear them.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
There is no more right to a fair trial in DUI cases. USSC said so a long time ago.
Sig is on vacation
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
Many years ago I was at a bar in NJ listening to a band. I had 1 beer over the whole 4 hours I was there. I was younger and dancing my ass off so no time to drink. I was pulled over on the way back to my apartment. When they noticed my MN drivers license they asked me to take a breathalyzer, I did. When I passed it, they had another squad car there and asked me to take another one. This happened one more time before I refused. I had been breathalyzed 3 times and was still afraid that if I refused they would rough me up for not following orders. But, I finally said no because it was obvious that they were just hoping for a misreading. Then they all stood in a circle and talked and let me go. I was about 22 at the time and it has definitely helped to make me distrust police.
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.
Sigh. No, slavery was the root cause for the terrorist organization that called itself the Confederacy, by the terrorist's own admission. "Those [non-slaveholding] States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of Slavery; they have permitted the open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace...property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection." -- Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina From the Federal Union
Double sigh. The whole point of the Constitution was to create a strong federal government, because the weak one of the Articles of Confederation failed. The "original intent" of Federalists like Madison was that the federal government would have more power over things like commerce and taxation than the British Parliament had had.
And, if you haven't noticed, this whole discussion is about how a state -- not the federal gubbmint -- is doing something in violation of people's rights. This is exactly the sort of behavior where the fed should step in to guarantee that a state respects citizens' due process rights.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I simply moved out of the US to a "socialist" place that has lower taxes and better services. Isn't that the American way? Let the consumer decide and vote with their feet.
Learn to love Alaska
Try the South's attempts to industrialise, countered by the North's attempts to keep that from happening unless the North got a serious cut of the money. The major market for the South's cotton was the textile mills of New England. The North's major market for those textiles was Engladn and Europe. The North didn't want to give up its monopoly. Hint: It worked. The South didn't industrialise until the Reconstruction. Now, all other things being equal, take slavery out of the equation. Without the labor supply or industrialisation, , the South would have been dirt poor, and easy to keep in line
It's been 150 years. They're still dirt poor. Maybe it's because that's the only thing the South has in abundance: Dirt. Well, dirt and a steadfast refusal to change. Meanwhile, in the North, we embraced change, technology, equality.. and now we're busy supporting the South with their shit infrastructure, water shortages, and high rates of unemployment, and corresponding low rates of literacy.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie