Comments on: Source code standoff in breathalyzer case

Minnesota officials haven't met a court-imposed deadline for turning over the source code to a breath-test device, which could lead to dropped DUI charges.

[worsethannormal]

Give up the code.

I think it's important to consider how this would have been handled before the invention of such devices. Lab work would have been run and someone from the lab would be on hand at the trial to testify to the findings. The defense then has the ability to question the evidence, the testing methods or even the lab itself.

In this case the only way to "interogate" the lab is by having a look at the code. How can we be certain that the beathalyzer was not programmed to adjust it's findings to a higher level?

I think we also must consider the harm that would be done. If the code is released, will it make this device easier to beat? Um, no. That's like saying if I had the code for a Scantron machine, I could get a 100% on any test graded by that method. What about the company who produces these devices? Plenty of safegaurds could be put in place by the court to prevent any proprietary information from leaking. As well as the fact that the software is probably hardware specific.

[pgh]

Couldn't agree more

If we are to have real justice based upon evidence and the right of both the prosecutor and defendant to question that evidence, then any device that provides such evidence must have its methods (software) opened to examination.

While it may have an impact on the business of the manufacturer, there must always be a higher standard applied when such devices are used in evidence and, as such, their concerns are outweighed by due process.

It's clear to me that the State made a serious mistake when it negotiated the contract to purchase these machines. Frankly, they should have anticipated this legal challenge.

[The_Decider]

This says volumes about the validity of the device

Minnesota's lack of action says all there is to say about the reliability of the machine.

Look for the state to stop using it in the near future, as they will likely not get another DUI conviction until they either submit the device and the code for testing, or outright stop using it.

There is no downside to allowing the code to be examined. If it passes muster, then they have stronger DUI evidence. If it fails, then the state knows it needs to change or fix the device.

Either way, society wins.

This country should not tolerate the inability to confront ones accuser, nor should it ever want someone to be wrongly convicted.

DUI is such an emotional issue, that the presumption of innocence no longer exists. This can not be tolerated in a free society. The state has to prove its case against the defendant, not the other way around.

[w5pda]

Source code standoff in breathalyzer case

The Intoxilyzer 5000 uses the Z80 processor first put on the market in 1976. I could be wrong, but aren't we in the 21st century?

Small wonder why so many DUI/DWI cases could be thrown out.

[The_Decider]

It doesn't matter how old the processor is

As long as it functions correctly and quickly enough, that is all that matters.

The issue is the source code and whether or not it produces consistently accurate measurements. The underlying hardware is irrelevant, unless the ALU is not accurate enough.

You think there should be a 3 GHZ quad core XEON in it?