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
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.........
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.
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
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.
http://www.fatiguescience.com/assets/pdf/Alcohol-Fatigue.pdf
Such as figure 1B, which shows, on average, how mean relative performance always decreases with any alcohol (albeit trivially up to about 0.04)
or http://addictions.uchicago.edu/carl/DandAlcDependence%20Brumback.pdf
That shows only with low doses of alcohol (under about 0.042 BAC) can you not really notice a drop in performance, and after that everyone, heavy drinkers or not perform worse in cognitive tasks and that the heavy and non heavy drinking groups mirror each other in performance.
I'd give more links but if you aren't on a university campus or somewhere else that they're free it's sort of futile, and I don't really want to keep mashing links until I find ones that work without academic library access (and where I am has a med school so we're subscribed to medical journals, places without a med school might not).
But hey, why not make up some facts that 'some studies' support your argument so you can create a perception of authority without providing those studies and when the most easily findable studies (when searching for terms like cognitive impairment and blood alcohol level, and other obvious search terms produce results that disagree with you?).
Now your first line, you hit the nail on the head, before you joined the nutter bin. It's clear that BAC less than about 0.04 has so little impairment (even though it is there) you need very large sample sizes for that effect to not get lost in noise. That applies to heavy and mild drinkers equally. So if where you live has a BAC requirement of less than 0.04 they're probably playing theatre or moral/religious grounds than evidence based policy. Anyone who's at about 0.05 or worse is making a judgment call on just how much measurable impairment is tolerable, which is all science can do. Politicians have to decide risk tolerance and cost benefit analysis, science merely quantifies the effect that creates risk, and sometimes the risk itself.
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?
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)
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.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
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.
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.
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