Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Say a Breathalyzer Has Flaws, Casting Doubt On Countless Convictions (zdnet.com)
An anonymous reader writes: The source code behind a police breathalyzer widely used in multiple states -- and millions of drunk driving arrests -- is under fire. It's the latest case of technology and the real world colliding -- one that revolves around source code, calibration of equipment, two researchers and legal maneuvering, state law enforcement agencies, and Draeger, the breathalyzer's manufacturer. This most recent skirmish began a decade ago when Washington state police sought to replace its aging fleet of breathalyzers. When the Washington police opened solicitations, the only bidder, Draeger, a German medical technology maker, won the contract to sell its flagship device, the Alcotest 9510, across the state. But defense attorneys have long believed the breathalyzer is faulty. Jason Lantz, a Washington-based defense lawyer, enlisted a software engineer and a security researcher to examine its source code. The two experts wrote in a preliminary report that they found flaws capable of producing incorrect breath test results. The defense hailed the results as a breakthrough, believing the findings could cast doubt on countless drunk-driving prosecutions.
The neurological deficits of drinking (and using many other drugs) persist long after blood levels have dropped to zero. So either develop tests that measure actual impairment (and bust a lot more people) or just admit that so many people are impaired but sliding under the limits that we may as well just let them drive.
Have gnu, will travel.
So in most cases they use the breathalyzer along with a field sobriety test to determine if they should arrest a driver, after which they normally draw a blood sample for a more precise test. (In most states, drivers can refuse the tests and receive an automatic license suspension, though that's often not as bad as a conviction, but it doesn't preclude a conviction based on the sobriety test alone.)
So we have lots of cases where there is both breathalyzer test data and blood test data. This gives a huge amount of data that can be correlated. Also, the times of the test should be recorded, so expected declines due to delays between the two tests can be computed. So all we need to do is gather up the data from a few years of use, and then we can see what the reliability of the breathalyzer is in comparison to the blood test.
We know that any test can fail (equipment failure, cross contamination, operator error, etc.), but this will give solid data on the expected error.
You don't have to be driving drunk to be pulled over and accused of it.
Lose.
would've
The inability to spell on /. seems to be higher than in my daughter's elementary school class....
Yeah, yeah, I know. Spelling isn't important. Get off my lawn!
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Why did you call him an asshole? He didn't say anything about driving drunk, and it's obviously assumed that everyone is talking about a situation where the driver is sober. But what do you do when a cop wants to test the sobriety? Don't we want to have DWI/DUI laws? If you have these laws, you need some way to investigate suspects. But impaling innocent people (yes, I'm using totally loaded language here, on purpose) is something most of us don't want.
So a whole game develops in the middle ground of uncertainty. Go too far one way, and you don't really have effective laws against drunk driving. Go too far the other way, and you're poking holes in innocent people to make them bleed. Breathalysers were a great compromise .. if only they hadn't tried to keep the inner workings a secret from the very society that judges the accused, thereby making them bullshit "evidence." FAIL.
Open up the breathalysers to auditing and maintenance and you'll have a useful technology. Just like we eventually determine with everything else that's important (e.g. the software in your desktop computer). Anything you can't audit, is bullshit.
But I mention it, because, well...shit happens. And with the BAC levels reduced to such stupidly LOW levels (0.08)....you can get very close to the legal limit as a grown man, having only 2-3 glasses of wine with a meal....and they can bust you, yet you may not even be close to impaired.
I don't think that is stupidly low at all. I've seen people get visibly impaired on a couple of glasses of wine. Not drunk-drunk, but to a point where it obviously would impair them to a degree. Most people won't be majorly impacted by 2 glasses of wine, but they have to set the levels that low to catch the sizable minority that are.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
It shouldn't be the lowest common denominator, that opens up WAY too broad of a dragnet.
If it were 1 in 100 that 0.8 was too high to drive; I would agree with you. If it is 1 in 4 then, absolutely, even if 3 can drive safely at that limit- 25% not being able to is a significant number. 0.8 is actually higher than a lot of states in the Union, and higher than a lot of Asian and European countries.
I have a simple rule. If I have drunk any alcohol; I don't drive. Even though after a couple of beers or a couple glasses of wine, I don't feel impaired, I don't drive if I've drunk anything. It's really not worth it. It's not worth being impaired even if I feel fine; it's not worth getting arrested if my blood alcohol is higher than I think.
It's not like it's that inconvenient to skip a drink every once in a while if you have to drive.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Comment removed based on user account deletion