Slashdot Log In
MN Supreme Court Backs Reasoned Requests For Breathalyzer Source Code
Posted by
Soulskill
on Sat May 02, 2009 12:27 PM
from the if-you-work-for-it dept.
from the if-you-work-for-it dept.
viralMeme writes with news that the Minnesota Supreme Court has upheld the right of drunk-driving defendants to request the source code for the breathalyzer machines used as evidence against them, but only when the defendant provides sufficient arguments to suggest that a review of the code may have an impact on the case. In short: no fishing expeditions. The ruling involves two such requests (PDF), one of which we've been covering for some time. In that case, the defendant, Dale Underdahl simply argued that to challenge the validity of the charges, he had to "go after the testing method itself." The Supreme Court says this was not sufficient. Meanwhile, the other defendant, Timothy Brunner, "submitted a memorandum and nine exhibits to support his request for the source code," which included testimony from a computer science professor about the usefulness of source code in finding voting machine defects, and a report about a similar case in New Jersey where defects were found in the breathalyzer's source code. This was enough for the Supreme Court to acknowledge that an examination of the code could "relate to Brunner's guilt or innocence."
Related Stories
[+]
DUI Defendant Wins Source Code to Breathalyzer 638 comments
MyrddinBach writes "CNet's Police Blotter column looks into a Minnesota drunk driving defendant case with a twist. The defendant says he needs the source code to the Intoxilyzer 5000EN to fight the charges in court. Apparently the company has agreed to turn over the code to the defense. 'A judge granted the defendant's request, but Michael Campion, Minnesota's commissioner in charge of public safety, opposed it. Minnesota quickly asked an appeals court to intervene, which it declined to do. Then the state appealed a second time. What became central to the dispute was whether the source code was owned by the state or CMI, the maker of the Intoxilyzer.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Hm. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hm. (Score:4, Interesting)
That is mentioned as a consequence of the ruling. Now it remains to be seen whether the manufacturer will release the source code. If they won't, presenting a copy of Bruner's exhibits will be a 'get out of jail free' card for drunk driving in Minnesota. Which will mean the state will have to go with a manufacturer that WILL provide the source. Nice.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hm. (Score:5, Funny)
Wait, wait, wait. You're saying embedded code often stinks? Don't we use embedded code in voting machines? My God, has anyone checked them? This sounds like it could be a real problem, I think we need to notify the authorities.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But that's contrary to the prohibitionist agenda that defines "drunk" using arbitrarily low readings from a breathalyzer, so it's unlikely to occur.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Once they take you to whatever office you can take either:
A) Blood test
B) Brethalater (desk-top version of a breathalizer, presumably more accurate)
If you refuse to take A or B then your license is revoked for a year.
Re:Hm. (Score:5, Informative)
You have to refuse the breathalyzer and the blood test for the penalty to kick in.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hm. (Score:5, Informative)
This is not a federal issue, and the procedures vary from state to state. In Pennsylvania you have to submit blood even if you take a breathalyzer and plead guilty or they take your license for a year. In Massachusetts you can take a breathalyzer or a blood test, but can only do the latter if you can afford to pay a personal physician to show up at the station and perform the test. (Read: Aren't poor and/or ignorant)
;-)
So you see, different states abuse citizens right in different ways
Parent
not necessarily (Score:2)
He could still be found guilty of DUI assuming other evidence was convincing; and for that matter, they could still cart people to a hospital for a blood test.
Re: (Score:2)
Fishing expeditions (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Fishing expeditions (Score:5, Informative)
At times I have been an expert witness. I look at the evidence, and make a reasoned finding which I explain what I think, in terms a layman can apprehend, to the court reporter. If I can't ethically testify in the customer's favor, I tell them so and end the engagement before there is a chance for me to testify.
My cases rarely have much to do with a judge, because civil cases tend to settle. And then get sealed, so you can't see them.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
My cases rarely have much to do with a judge, because civil cases tend to settle. And then get sealed, so you can't see them.
I think being an expert witness in a civil trial is vastly different than being called to testify for a criminal case. In civil cases, the penalties are financial and usually end up being worth settling because the legal costs can be more excessive than the settlement costs.
You can't settle criminal cases easily, so shopping for an expert to prevent jail time probably has a heavier w
Re:Fishing expeditions (Score:5, Interesting)
I've never found it very difficult to understand the lawyers and judge's case findings. Yes, they use a little Latin, but you can learn the 100 most used words and look up anything more that comes up on the web. And they cite cases, which you can look up too.
Are you talking about contracts?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I also understand most legal gibberish (as an anarcho-capitalist, if it is law-focused, it's gibberish). I would wager one year's income that 9 out of 10 people (my definition of "laymen") would not be able to.
The court wants/demands/expects technical terms and ideology laid out in a way than 9 out of 10 people would understand. The garbage they spew in response wouldn't meet the standards to what they expect.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because they've never learned words like "cloture". But that's the framework that they function in every day, even if they don't think about it much. Nobody taught me that either, I guess I just took the trouble to learn.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fishing expeditions (Score:4, Interesting)
So essentially challenging evidence gathering methods is insufficient, but making colorful posters and waving around a PhD is fine?
Yes. Like a slashdot legal opinion is worthless, and someone who has passed the bar has value. Who is questioning the procedure is relevant.
Parent
Re:Fishing expeditions (Score:5, Funny)
I think the problem here is that the guy caught drunk-driving didn't pass the bar. He stopped and went in.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Me: I think it might suck wind, like 90% of the proprietary code in production use today.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind that most judges do try to strike a balance between allowing parties to gather necessary evidence and ensuring that there's a reasonable likelihood what's being subpoenaed is relevant and necessary, and at least in theory aren't supposed to allow subpoenas just to fish.
That being said, when one is facing a criminal conviction largely based upon the results from an electronic device, "I want to know exactly how that device works, including its source code", seems on its face to be a request of r
Re:Fishing expeditions (Score:4, Informative)
I think they're more saying that you need some argument for why you're making the request. The fact that it's sufficient to make colorful posters and wave around a PhD just means that the MN court has put a fairly low bar on how good the argument has to be--- but they do require that you make some sort of argument. The guy whose request was rejected appears not to have made any argument at all for why retrieving the source code would plausibly help his trial; he just stated flatly that it might, which is not usually sufficient. The other guy made some effort to argue why the source code for this sort of device was relevant to his case.
Parent
Re:Fishing expeditions (Score:4, Interesting)
I remember a discussion about this on /. awhile ago, and somebody brought up a point I couldn't quite remember. I hopped over to the wikipedia page to look for something about found this:
"Some breath analysis machines assume a hematocrit (cell volume of blood) of 47%. However, hematocrit values range from 42 to 52% in men and from 37 to 47% in women. A person with a lower hematocrit will have a falsely high BAC reading."
and this:
"Breathalyzers assume that the subject being tested has a 2100-to-1 'partition ratio' in converting alcohol measured in the breath to estimates of alcohol in the blood [. . .] However, this assumed 'partition ratio' varies from 1300:1 to 3100:1 or wider among individuals and within a given individual over time."
I'm not sure what, exactly, I was remembering from the previous discussion; these may or may not be it. What I do remember is that it was essentially that, somewhere in this code, there are assumptions made and that the validity of the assumptions is going to directly affect the validity of the code.
Without knowing what, exactly, this machine is measuring and what it is assuming about the individual taking the test, it's impossible to know whether or not there's any reason to believe the test was inaccurate. Since both of these people argued this case to the Minnesota Supreme Court, I hope they both feel they're innocent.
I suppose this guy's lawyer should have made that argument. On the other hand, I don't think it's unreasonable for judges who are going to oversea DUI cases to understand that a breathalyzer is not, by any stretch, conclusive evidence. Use it to haul somebody in, by all means -- then get yourself a blood test. Bill the person being charged for the test for all I care. The breathalyzer itself should not be admissible in court. (I'm ignoring, by the way, the fact that something like having taken cough medicine could also affect the results.)
Parent
That's how science works (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's how science works (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Daubert superseded Frye and does specifically require that the technique be subject to peer review AND PUBLICATION. That means that the super secret proprietary code in the brethalyser disqualifies it (or should disqualify it) as scientific evidence.
As far as 'generally accepted' goes, since this is essentially a medical test, I would have to presume the medical community's opinion would be relevant. As far as I know, when a doctor wants to know a patient's BAC, they do a blood test every time. Evidently th
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'd go a step further, and refuse any breathalyser that doesn't run linux.
Re:That's how science works (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
The Founding Fathers considered the body of a citizen to be the most prized or sacred "property" of all types of property, with proportional rights to privacy. Collection of things like breath or bodily fluids, etc. was a
Re:That's how science works (Score:5, Informative)
We also, as I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, don't convict you of DUI based on a breath test. The breath test (an SD-2 Breathalyzer machine in most cases) just gives enough evidence to take you in and do a blood draw. This avoids the source code problem, among others, by using well-known, old-fashioned, and I believe published lab methods to measure your blood alcohol content.
Of course, the SD-2 can be used to convict you of being a minor in consumption of alcohol, which makes sense because, whereas the DUI law punishes 0.08% or higher and an inaccurate measurement by the SD-2 can make or break the case, an MIC punishes anything greater than 0%, so an inaccurate measurement only matters if it finds alcohol where there is none, which is vastly less probable than inaccurately measuring the amount of alcohol where there is some.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, the SD-2 can be used to convict you of being a minor in consumption of alcohol, which makes sense because, whereas the DUI law punishes 0.08% or higher and an inaccurate measurement by the SD-2 can make or break the case, an MIC punishes anything greater than 0%, so an inaccurate measurement only matters if it finds alcohol where there is none, which is vastly less probable than inaccurately measuring the amount of alcohol where there is some.
Actually, it can be a problem. Many mouth washes contain alcohol (in that case, the breathalyzer is technically correct, but the assumption that alcohol on your breath means you consumed an alcoholic beverage is faulty). Many breathalyzers cannot distinguish ketones from alcohol. Even is the breathalyzer functions perfectly every time, it's not valid to presume guilt based on the slightest trace of a reading.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We bar evidence all the time if it's not reliable. That is particularly true when it might be prejudicial, that is when the judge knows it will LOOK damning to the jury but is in actuality either irrelevant or unreliable. A judge may also instruct the jury to disregard testimony if it fails to meet the relevant standards.A judge may even penalize the prosecution if it knowingly brings a case based only on such inadmissible evidence (though it is more common to simply admonish them and throw the case out). E
They can't force a blood draw (Score:3, Insightful)
At least not in any jurisdiction I'm aware of, but you can demand one. This is the way to go too, have them take blood, and demand a sample be taken for your attorney as well. The reason is that the only way to accurately measure blood alcohol content is to, well, measure the amount of alcohol in the blood.
The reason the breathalyzer manufacturers are so scared to have their units inspected isn't because there's something evil in the source, but because they know it is a flawed system. They are things that
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I had a breathalyzer administered roadside by an officer show me as legally intoxicated, which I found very odd since I hadn't consumed ANY alcohol in at least three days.
I absolutely insisted on being taken to the hospital for a proper blood test. The staff there were very much not amused with the officer when my ACTUAL B.A.C. was at .001!
Breathalyzers are great in theory, out in the real world they can AND DO fail.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There have been MANY studies of this. The reality is not what the lawmakers would have you believe.
First, it is a fact that experienced drinkers can drive safely with a lot more alcohol in their systems than inexperienced drinkers can. (This is one of several ways in which BAC is NOT directly related to driving impairment.) The current legal system does not account for this, and in fact commonly denies it is true, even though the sci
My father wrote the first Felony DWI laws in MN (Score:4, Interesting)
Thought I would share this, and before a bunch of you start posting BS about the claim of who wrote what, that is not the point. The point is the evolution of MN DWI law and technology.
My father as a prosecutor in Minneapolis in the 60's and 70's started prosecuting drunk drivers for things like felony manslaughter and such. At the time it was just misdemeanor, and often the police would just give someone a ride home. The State legislators and several lobby groups caught wind of it and asked him to write the laws. Those became the first felony laws for DWI in MN, and later where used as a model for other States around the country. Obviously they have been super modified since then, but the fundamental principle that DWI is something serious is still there.
My father went on in private practice as defense attorney in the 80's. Almost all of his acquittals on DWI came down to discrediting the probable cause (i.e. the officer) for the arrest in the first place. Typically the officer's judgment was always front and center (e.g. did he really see him cross the center line on an ice covered road). It got progressively harder as they started adding video cameras and other technology to get someone off on a DWI charge, as the officer's judgment became less important.
I suspect since my father's time, the only thing left to really attack is the validity of the technology itself that measures the crime.
Re:These guys are no heroes (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd hate to see Slashdot supporting these wreckless drunks just because they claim to be l33t haX0rs.
That is the point. If the machine is faulty, they are not "drunks." Kinda like that printer wasn't really seeding Smells Like Teen Spirit. Only by examining the procedure for determining that state, can we know.
Parent
Re:These guys are no heroes (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd hate to see slashdoters ignoring the basic principles of our justice system just to pursue some prejudice against accused drunk drivers.
Like it or not the foundation of out criminal justice system is based on the idea its better to let the guilty go free then the innocent be punished. It might be "PC" to "get tough on drunk driving," but this is a nation of laws or at least it used to be. The burden of evidence is supposed to be on the state. If the state is using equipment that must have its inner workings concealed as evidence. I think in the name of justice we must assume that without other pretty damning evidence its not sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt guilt.
If you can't show me how it works or show that it does work in a double blind test with a sufficient sample size, it would not be a good enough argument for me serving on a jury to convict.
The state is much more powerful than and individual the burden of proof is supposed to be on them. A few numbers on an LED display connected to some box you blow in does not cut it, unless you can tell me a lot about what those numbers mean, how they are determined, if its accurate.
Parent
Oh jeez (Score:3, Insightful)
Just as one can't prove a negative
Not this crap again...
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=can't+prove+a+negative [google.com]
...And if it floats, it's probably a duck. (Score:3, Insightful)
I think enough of us who are older have known people to be killed by drunk drivers and I honestly have no idea why drunk drivers are even allowed to live after they kill someone.
So go kill the drunks that killed your friends. Be the vigilante.
Or allow that due process of law should trump personal feelings in these matters.
The bottom line is, if someone is getting pulled over for DUI, its because they were already obviously driving smashed.
People drive poorly for all sorts of reasons apart from intoxication. Being tired, or distracted, or suffering from a condition that causes poor night vision all too frequently lead to accidents.
And not everyone who gets pulled over is guilty of something. Cops make mistakes too...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>
The bottom line is, if someone is getting pulled over for DUI, its because they were already obviously driving smashed. You can see them when you drive - weaving, going slow, forgot to put the headlights on, maybe stopping too soon or too often... and for what? Really, for what do people do this?
I hope you are never the cop who pulls someone over in diabetic keto acidosis... Looks like a drunk, smells like a drunk, acts like a drunk... And if you just dump them in the drunk tank, they will die and you will be on trial.
Re:These guys are no heroes (Score:4, Funny)
Paging Rene Descarte - Monsieur, we need you urgently....
Cheers,
Ian
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
GP likely speaks American English.