MN Supreme Court Backs Reasoned Requests For Breathalyzer Source Code 199
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."
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.
That's how science works (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fishing expeditions (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:These guys are no heroes (Score:2, Insightful)
GP likely speaks American English.
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.
Re:These guys are no heroes (Score:2, Insightful)
If the machine is faulty, they are not "drunks."
Um. Wrong. Are you saying there were no drunk drivers before breath machines? Whether or not someone was drunk driving doesn't depend on the machine. Blood tests, failing FSTs, officer observations of your behavior and smell... any of these things are sufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.
"Beyond a reasonable doubt" doesn't mean "beyond a shadow of a doubt." A possible or hypothetical doubt you have because you don't have a machine reading, or fingerprints, or a DNA sample isn't reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is one based on reason and the facts in evidence.
If the prosecution has addressed each element of the crime, and for each element you have no reason to doubt it, then conviction is proper.
Re:Hm. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's good to know that Massachusetts hates the poor and ignorant. I was unclear on that. Any state that hates poor and ignorant can't be all bad.
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]
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 can be accurate, but only if the assumptions they make are correct, and they aren't for all people. As such you can't guarantee an accurate result. If this gets widely shown in court, well then their devices are likely to lose use with law enforcement.
More or less their method for measuring BAC could be compared to measuring the current running through a circuit by measuring the intensity of the light bulb on that circuit. Such a thing can work and give accurate results, but only if you make correct assumptions. You need to know the efficiency of the bulb, the voltage of the circuit, and if there is resistance anywhere else in there. So if your system was designed for incandescent bulbs but your were measuring a florescent, you'd get the wrong result. Same deal if you were designed for a 120v line and it was a 240v bulb.
This is why the breathalyzer companies have flat out refused to hand over their source in various cases. They know that their market is going to vastly shrink if they do.
So as I said: Always demand a blood sample, and another for your lawyer so it can be independently tested. This, of course, won't do any good if you are actually driving drunk but my advice in that situation is don't. However it will do a good job of keeping you from falsely being charged/convicted.
...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:That's how science works (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 science on this is plentiful, sound, and conclusive.
Some people have a higher physical tolerance for alcohol than others. This is completely separate from the first point. But when you put the two together (some people are more tolerant, and experienced drinkers drive better than inexperienced drinkers do), you end up with a WIDE variety of driving skills, given a certain BAC. This is a fact that the legal system refuses to acknowledge.
Further, the legal limit is set too low. Case in point: the State of Idaho did its own studies, performed through State universities, on driver impairment and BAC. What they found, after rather exhaustive testing, was that at 0.1% BAC, the driving skills of most people were not significantly impaired.
And yet, when MADD put pressure on the legislature to crack down on "driving while intoxicated", Idaho changed the state limit to 0.08%, as was the fad at the time. Even though their own science stated that this would result in the arrest and incarceration of a huge number of people who were not actually intoxicated in any scientific sense of the term.
This was an outright criminal thing to do, and it has indeed led to the arrest, incarceration, and other legal ramifications for countless people who drive, but who are not intoxicated in any realistic sense.
It is any wonder that people -- especially young people -- have lost respect for the law? When some laws become blatantly unreasonable and unjust, the respect for all law goes out the window.