DUI Defendant Wins Source Code to Breathalyzer 638
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.'"
Sigh (Score:2, Insightful)
DUI defendant would have been better off (Score:3, Insightful)
Owner (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
Really this seems like a win-win for everyone involved.
Re:What about (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What about (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What about (Score:4, Insightful)
I am all for lowering the limit even below 0.08, not because I want more "gubermint" in by business, but because it's just safer for everyone.
Now bring on all the people who say, "but..but...but, it's the same thing with cell phones."
Yep - ban them too! :-)
The good old fashioned blood test? (Score:3, Insightful)
When early electronic breathalizers first came out here years ago they either didn't detect the alcohol at all, or they false alarmed by detecting toothpaste and aftershave. The blood test is conclusive. Why should we trust these new tech devices? I mean people here successfully challenged the accuracy of speedcameras and other such devices. We want to be sure.
Re:Language? (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you for editing out that nasty word, or reading that might have fucked up people's brains.
This joke brought to you from Larry Wall, courtesy of Bluesman Slashdot Posting, INC.
Re:Sigh (Score:3, Insightful)
"reasonable doubt" & further (blood) tests (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, but if "the possibility, however remote, that a device, at the time at which it was used, did not operate according to specification" makes for 'reasonable doubt', then you would never see another speeding ticket, DUI ticket, etc.
Back on-topic.. don't people who get caught with a breathalyzer (is what they're more known as over here) get taken to the station for a more thorough and accurate, possibly blood, test to determine the blood alcohol level, before going through the steps of fining? As far as I know, the breathalyzers for that exact reason are set up to be moderately lax, as false positives would just be a giant waste of time + money on both the part of the government -and- the person who got tested, causing collateral damages everywhere.
Re:Source code not enough. (Score:3, Insightful)
The toxylizer that was used to mark him needs to be confiscated and reverse-engineered to see if the code running on it, is effectively produced by the source code in question
Nonsense. You could take your argument to the next level and say there's something different about the hardware in the machine. Black-box testing of this thing should prove that it works (and ultimately is a better test than looking at source code).
I can't believe this thing is all that complicated as far as inputs go (like a guy blowing in a tube). To prove it works you'd only need to test it against a series of knowns. That'll easily prove it's not a "random number generator".
This case is just about someone with a chunk of money that's trying to get out of drunk driving. While I think it's a good thing that you can get the source code to something that's effectively testifying against you, I think this case is hardly anything approaching a miscarriage of justice.
Maybe thats what he wanted.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What about (Score:4, Insightful)
It would be "just safer for everyone" to require that you don't drive for a week after drinking alcohol, and to wear a helmet whenever you do, and yet it's not a law.
Doing things in the name of safety while ignoring the cost is a bad way to do anything.
Re:What about (Score:5, Insightful)
Why don't we just bring back prohibition while we're at it?
Having spent time in North Italy (Lots of mountain roads), I can say that I saw many people out to lunch split a bottle of wine between 2 or 3 people, and drive back to work. In all my time there, I didn't see one wreck. Not one.
I come back stateside and in one day see 10 obviously fatal wrecks on one road. Flat dry pavement.
Speed doesn't kill. Some alcohol doesn't kill. An extremely lax drivers education/training/licensing policy coupled with general distraction and self-ceneredness (I'm the king of the road get the hell out of my way so I can get my snot-nosed brats to soccer practice) absolutely does. Speed and alcohol can make that worse, but they are far far from the boogieman many idiots in the US make them out to be.
I say fix the real problems, and roll back the levels to where they were in the 70s, enforce those levels effectively, and shut the hell up and stop harassing relatively innocent tax payers.
My $0.02US.
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
If they were convicted by evidence from defective equipment, it SHOULD be thrown out. That is a founding principle of our system of justice. We as a society prefer that the guilty walk rather than imprison the innocent; or at least we as a society used to think that... and I still do... but I don't think I speak for society anymore.
That said, even I don't think a found bug should be an automatic acquittal. After all it could be reading lower than it should have been! But yeah, if they find a bug that caused it to read double the actual amount under various circumstances then I would have no qualms about throwing out any DUI convictions it caused.
Re:What about (Score:4, Insightful)
From reading the article you can see that getting the source code is not about proving it accurate or not, but that cases have been thrown out previously because the company refused to release the source code. In this case the defendant is probably very unhappy that the source code was released. This is a pretty clear case of a defense backfiring. Hopefully he will find any bugs in the software so they can be corrected, but that probably won't stop him from being convicted.
Driving is a privilege (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Source code not enough. (Score:3, Insightful)
And in the over all "good" side of this argument, more eyes can make better software. Even if this guy gets off with nothing due to the source, it can only drive to make the source better.
-Rick
Case by case (Score:1, Insightful)
Each device and/or technology has to be evaluated on a case by case basis to determine its accuracy and reliability. I would guess that even within the "breathalizers" category, there is a wide range of devices with varying accuracy. There are probably a few stinkers that are habitually inaccurate and/or constantly breaking, and there are probably a few that are absolutely rock solid and dead-on accurate.
To suggest that "we shouldn't rely on such devices" just because others have failed in the past is just being a Luddite.
Responsibility in DUI Laws (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, breathalyzers have a +/- 20% error [duiblog.com], which is rather unfortunate.
Ignition interlocks have a
We need to deal with the drunk driving problem responsibly: provide good public transportation options (Boston, extend trains until after 2am, you listening?), encourage designated drivers, and provide massive roaming police enforcement, looking for erratic driving and dangerous behavior (substantially more effective [abionline.org] than roadblocks).
Re:What about (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, a little planning also can go a long way
DUI exception to the constitution (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as the DOL is concerned, you are GUILTY based on some arbitrary number the machine spits out. Your right to "due process" is bypassed at that point, a person who works for the DOL then becomes prosecutor and judge and inevitably suspends your license. When you have little or no money, you just flat out get fucked in the ass with a un-lubricated utility pole. DUI law today has NOTHING to do with curbing drunk driving, it has everything to with nothing but raking in revenue. duiblog [duiblog.com]
Accuracy of technical equipment (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you ever seen someone from a good old german "Eichamt" turn up in your grocery store and check alle the balances? It's really fun, when he pulls out all those gauged weights and then tells you your balance is wrong (by
Are you sure you buy 500g of strawberries, if that's what it says on the sticker? - Really?
Re:What is so bad about alcohol testers? (Score:4, Insightful)
There are always going to be borderline cases, and machines do a shit job at resolving them.
Re:DUI defendant would have been better off (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not true. Even if the source is 100% bug free, the assumptions [1800duilaws.com] they use to model the physical systems in question may be in error. Breathalyzers are good at measuring alcohol content in air, extrapolating that to alcohol content in blood is a tricky business since no two people are exactly the same.
Re:I'm shocked they upheld this! (Score:3, Insightful)
Answer: have judge Fine the comapny $10,000.00 a day until they relesae the source code to the court. The company is clearly in contempt of the court. I would go as far as issuing a warrant for the CEO's arrest for contempt as well.
That would probably get you the source code within 5 days.
Re:DUI defendant would have been better off (Score:3, Insightful)
No different than e-voting (Score:3, Insightful)
BTW, I develop embedded systems software for a living, I have run across strange and subtle bugs before, and I have no objection to having somebody reviewing my work for correctness.
Re:state==public domain? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd say dealing with the inconvenience of finding another way home is much better than being potentially responsible for crippling another human being. Then again, what do I know? I'm not a self-centered asshole who thinks she has a right to get behind the wheel of a 2 ton machine after doing Jell-O shots. There's no - ZERO - reason to get behind the wheel of a car after you've been drinking. Ever. If you have somewhere you urgently need to be and can't wait around or sleep it off, then maybe you shouldn't have been drinking in the first place.
My best friend on the planet has a non-functional right leg thanks to some guy who was convinced he was fine to drive. After helping her through getting her life back together over the course of years since her accident, I'd be just fine if they threw drunk drivers in jail and told their cellmates that they were child molesters.
Re:What about (Score:3, Insightful)
According to the article,
he's got this guy. [minnesotamonthly.com] Looks expensive.
Re:What about (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What about (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:state==public domain? (Score:2, Insightful)
On the rare occasion that I go out to get hammered at a bar that isn't within walking distance of my house, I keep a spare twenty for cab fare.
I'm amazed at the number of people who will happily spend fifty to a hundred bucks on booze and then drive home to save a few bucks on the taxi.
Re:What about (Score:1, Insightful)
No, it's the sudden deceleration that kills.
Actually, speed can be relevant to the cause of the accident. Different cars, with different tires, can safely handle different speeds under different conditions. At some point, the speed is higher than the car is capable of handling.
Re:I'm shocked they upheld this! (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't tell you how many pieces of both code and hardware I have seen sent back or scrapped entirely because they passed every test with flying colors and then failed subtly and silently in the real world. Including life-critical medical machines and other extremely rigorously tested devices.
If it's so well-tested and fool-proof there should be no problem opening up the source and as part of the rigorous testing, it should have been opened and inspected by the customer (the state) in the first place!
Re:state==public domain? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:state==public domain? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll bite. You are an AC Cave Troll. You are scum.
I have lived past friends who thought they could drink and drive and worse, friends who were the victims of others who thought they could drink and drive. Nothing quite brings this whole issue home like the death of an 8 year old child. He was in the back seat on the way home rom a late visit to his grandparents in northern Indiana. His parents never saw the driver coming. He had his lights off. He hit them at about 60 miles per hour. T-Bone right where their son was sitting. He lasted about a week without ever gaining consciousness before he died.
While in California, I was able to do a drink and drive course. I don't know if they do those anymore, but it was very educational. Alcohol impairs your ability to perform any function. Period. It is not a question of what it does, but how badly it does it. The law allows a few drinks over time. I would allow none.
It is irresponsible, selfish and childish to drink and operate any machinery that could be dangerous. I would like to see much stiffer sentences for drunk and/or impaired driving and tickets for anything that impairs a person's driving. There is no excuse for it. You can argue with me all you want. You can call me names, you can hate me, but none of that brings back my dead friends.
InnerWeb
Re:What about (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What about (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup. My brother spent 2 days in jail (with no record of it or the infraction--that's why he did it) for having ONE PINT which he drank over the course of 30 minutes and then drove home. He was pulled over for speeding, was breathalyzed, blew a .07, and was taken in for DWAI (DUI Jr.). When he went to his punitive alcohol class, he found that that was absolutely expected given his weight. If he'd waited like 15 minutes, he would have been fine.
But come ON. Who is impaired after ONE BEER? That's now my personal limit if I'm driving anywhere, though, and I wait an hour. Not because I'm too drunk to drive, but because the US is a police state.
I live in Japan now, where the limit is... anything over 0. This seems really draconian, until you see that there really is no reason to even worry about driving if you're going to be drinking. There are buses, there are trains, there are cabs, and there is even this really great service where if a night out for dinner "accidentally" becomes a night out drinking, 2 guys in a little tiny car come to where you've parked and one gets out and drives you home in your car while the other guy follows. It costs about the same as a cab ride (cabs here are expensive), but you AND your car get home safely! I have never really felt inconvenienced by the law here, even though it is much stricter than it is in the US, where I OFTEN feel inconvenienced, if not terrified.
Re:state==public domain? (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope you're just venting, because otherwise you have some real issues to work through.
I do think drunk drivers belong in jail, but that's because otherwise they're likely to re-offend, not so I can punish them for the existing offence. That's what jails are primarily for - keeping dangerous people away from the rest of society.
Re:state==public domain? (Score:2, Insightful)
There's no compelling reason why the United States doesn't have any sort of mass public transit infrastructure, either, but that hasn't caused one to magically spring forth from the realm of ghosts and wind.
Then again, even if their were, I'm sure the cops would harass a person for 'public intoxication' while pointedly not driving home.
Re:state==public domain? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's why I want to see all DUI laws revoked entirely. Same for cell phone laws.
If you get tagged for being an asshat on the road, and it turns out you had an aggravating factor that YOU CHOSE, then go ahead and increase the penalties.
This would cover kids, lack of glasses, drinking, cell phones, make up, and trombone playing without getting the government into "well,
It's like they say with children... punish the behavior, not the child.
If you aren't holding your lane position, braking/accelerating erratically, changing lanes suddenly without warning, etc... punish that.
If the above happens because of something the person chose to do, then bump it up.
Re:What about (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:state==public domain? (Score:2, Insightful)
There's no compelling reason why we need to talk on the phone while driving, there's no compelling reason why we need to listen to the radio while driving, there's no compelling reason why we need to drive. We don't "need" to do anything. We can walk, take the bus, or just not go. There's also no compelling reason why we need to drink at all.
This line of argument just doesn't work for me.
Bars have parking lots. What do we think people are doing? They are drinking until intoxication, and then they are driving home. Why pay for a beer if you're going to be sober? So then it just becomes a questions of whether you're a cheap drunk or not. If your level of intoxication is 0.05, good for you, you get to drive intoxicated all the time and it's perfectly legal! However, if it's 0.10, you're screwed. Is the first person a better driver at 0.06 than the second one at 0.09? Nobody asks that question.
Another thing is that any inconsistently enforced law is bad, especially if it has major consequences. Lots of people drive at an illegal level occasionally, but if you get caught, you're screwed. Should you be severely punished for something that a large fraction of people do? There's no graduated penalties:
And if you want to be safe from all the drunk drivers, there's a really simple solution: don't drive around between about midnight and 3am. Problem solved. Then, drunk drivers only kill other drunk drivers.
Re:What about (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just how big are you anyway? (Score:2, Insightful)
According to your chart [ohsinc.com] there is no percentage of alcohol, no matter how small, that does not impair. It has warnings about .01%. Some people can get that from mouthwash.
The other thing about these charts is that your body is disposing of the alcohol at (give or take) the rate of about 1 drink per hour. So if he's a large man like me (275 lbs) and had those drinks over the course of 3+ hours at a bar shooting pool, he's probably just over the .08 limit.
Realistically, "Impairment" is a difficult thing to measure. But I find it hard to believe most of what I've read in the last 15 years since "Drunk Driving" became a political crusade. As with anything else, once that happens it's hard to find any hard data or untainted statistics on the subject.
When I was a kid in high school, the material we had dealing with alcohol and tobacco seemed more realistic. For example, we were told that the average person's body could dispose of the tar from 3 cigarettes a day. **We were also told that it was unhealthy, and that you would almost certainly become addicted and smoke more than that.** But that seemed logical given that people don't worry about the ill effects of sitting around a campfire. But now we are told that even minimal exposure to someone else's smoke will do irreparable harm, cause cancer, etc. That doesn't seem likely for someone still healthy enough to sit around the campfire.
Alcohol statistics are getting there too. A buddy of mine was T-boned by a driver who ran a stop sign. The driver got off lucky, because my buddy was just on the minimum limit, and was faulted for the accident for being intoxicated. No need to look at the scene - he's been drinking so he's automatically guilty. Another banner case of alcohol abuse for the statistics.
It's not relevant, but I'll throw it in for the tear-jerker crowd. I have a sister-in-law who is missing a leg from a drunk driver. I have a friend who has major spinal injuries from a drunk driver. Yes those are tragedies, and I would show no mercy on a .22 driver flying around town out of control. But these people weren't injured by a .08 driving 2 miles home doing the speed limit. And no amount of hysteria, falsified studies, road blocks, check points, random searches, and nit-picking people over 1 or 2 drinks are going to prevent this sort of thing.
Another disclaimer - I've never had a DUI myself, and I don't drink anymore (I'm a sobered up alcoholic). I just believe in approaching problems rationally and realistically instead of hysterically.
Re:What about (Score:5, Insightful)
We could save way more lives by giving out free annual checkups or something. Try losing your insurance and needing $2m worth of health care and see how much your life is worth. Hell, try needing $20k worth. You'll find your life is worth very little. We constantly place a value on human life, and the value is extremely low. Life is full of cost/benefit tradeoffs and I truly don't understand why some of these are so insanely tilted. We're prepared to throw away trillions in certain areas for little to no benefit while adamantly refusing to spend enough on the huge bang-for-your-buck things.
That 16k/year statistic is bogus. Most of those accidents would have happened anyway. Obviously alcohol is not necessary for an accident, and nobody has proved that further lowering the BAC saves lives. Besides, most of the drunk driver related deaths were already against the law. Lowering the BAC further won't stop any of those deaths. Those drivers were already willing to break the law. Tweaking the law won't make them more responsible.
I really don't get your attitude. You act as if it is wrong to place a dollar amount on human life. Well it is done all the time. The dollar amount is quite low, too. When designing roads, cars, traffic rules, etc. a tradeoff must be made.
We could save 50k lives/year if we banned cars, but we as a society have decided that a human life isn't worth that much. We could probably save 40k lives/year is the speed limit was 25. Society has decided that that much lost time isn't worth a human life. We could give everyone a free safety upgrade to their car complete with 5-point restraint, interior crash protection cage, and so forth and probably save 30k lives/year but it just isn't worth it.
People get stupid about certain risks. They are prepared to spend unlimited amounts of money and lost time for zero demonstrable gain if it is about terrorists, child molesters, drunk drivers, violent video games, many other things. Yet many other greater risks are ignored or given low priority.
So many times I hear "You can't place a value on human life" or "If it saves even one life." That is so untrue and dishonest it makes my teeth hurt.