- Related Stories
-
Police Blotter: Fake gay HotorNot profile draws suit
July 13, 2007 -
Police Blotter: Dark side of 'reputation defending' service
June 29, 2007 -
Police Blotter: Necrobabes.com leads to murder conviction
June 21, 2007 -
Police Blotter: Teenage murderers convicted through IM logs
June 13, 2007 -
Police Blotter: Court overturns man's Net ban for life
June 6, 2007 -
Police Blotter: Cops need warrant to search cell phone?
May 30, 2007 -
Police Blotter: Bondage Webmaster fights abuse conviction
May 23, 2007 -
Police Blotter: Imprisoned sex offenders demand PCs
May 16, 2007 -
Police blotter: Fired federal worker sues over googling
May 9, 2007 -
Police blotter: Can someone else let cops search your PC?
May 2, 2007 -
Police blotter: Secret recording inadmissible against bus driver
April 25, 2007 -
Police blotter: Cops OK to copy cell phone content
April 19, 2007 -
Police blotter: Open Wi-Fi blamed in child porn case
April 18, 2007 -
Police blotter: Sensual masseuse sues ex-customer
April 11, 2007 -
Police blotter: No privacy in home PC brought to work
April 5, 2007 -
Police blotter: Ex-employee sued for deleting files
March 28, 2007
What: Drunk driving defendant says he needs the source code to the Intoxilyzer 5000EN to fight the charges in court.
When: Minnesota Supreme Court rules in his favor on July 26.
Outcome: Source code will be turned over to defense attorneys.
What happened, according to court records and other documents:
When Dale Lee Underdahl was arrested on February 18, 2006, on suspicion of drunk driving, he submitted to a breath test that was conducted using a product called the Intoxilyzer 5000EN.
During a subsequent court hearing on charges of third-degree DUI, Underdahl asked for a copy of the "complete computer source code for the (Intoxilyzer) currently in use in the state of Minnesota."
An article in the Pioneer Press quoted his attorney, Jeffrey Sheridan, as saying the source code was necessary because otherwise "for all we know, it's a random number generator." It is hardly new technology: One criminal defense attorney says the Intoxilyzer is based on the antique Z-80 microprocessor.
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.
Minnesota's original bid proposal that CMI responded to says that "all right, title, and interest in all copyrightable material" that CMI creates as part of the contract "will be the property of the state." The bid proposal also says CMI must provide "information" to be used by "attorneys representing individuals charged with crimes in which a test with the proposed instrument is part of the evidence," which seems to include source code.
Campion's office, on the other hand, claims the source code is confidential, copyrighted and proprietary. It has asked for what's known as a "writ of prohibition" barring the source code from being released.
The Minnesota Supreme Court rejected the request, saying "a writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy and is only used in extraordinary cases."
This isn't the first time breathalyzer source code has been the subject of legal scrutiny. A Florida court ruled two years ago that police can't use electronic breathalyzers as courtroom evidence against drivers unless the source code is disclosed. Other alleged drunk drivers have had charges thrown out because CMI refuses to reveal the Intoxilyzer source code.
Excerpt from Minnesota Supreme Court's ruling:
The district court ordered the production of the "complete computer source code" for the Intoxilyzer 5000EN. In support of its order, the district court found that under the contract between the state and CMI, the state owned the source code for the Intoxilyzer 5000EN. The court of appeals concluded that the district court's finding was not clearly erroneous given the concession in the state's petition seeking the writ of prohibition that it owned that portion of the source code created exclusively for the Intoxilyzer 5000EN...
Having carefully reviewed the record presented and the arguments of the parties, we conclude that we cannot decide the copyright issues raised. Although the parties direct us to copyright law regarding works for hire and derivative works, they provide only a superficial application of that law to the facts of this case. Perhaps that is because the factual record before us is inadequate, thereby making any determination regarding either copyright theory impossible.
Resolution of this issue, however, does not require us to apply federal copyright law because we also conclude that the commissioner has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the information sought is clearly not discoverable and that he has no adequate remedy at law. While on the one hand the commissioner argues that ownership of the source code for the Intoxilyzer 5000EN is to be determined under federal copyright law and that under that law he does not have possession, custody or control of the source code, on the other hand he concedes that the state owns and thus controls some portion of the source code. That concession is supported by the express language of the RFP granting CMI the right to supply the Intoxilyzer 5000EN to the state.
Further, given the express language of the RFP that requires CMI to provide the state with "information to be used by attorneys representing individuals charged with crimes in which a test with the (Intoxilyzer 5000EN) is part of the evidence" when production of the information is mandated by court order "from the court with jurisdiction of the case," it is not clear to us that the commissioner is unable to comply with the district court's order. Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the district court ordered the production of information that is clearly not discoverable...
We do not agree that the commissioner lacks adequate remedies at law. As discussed above, irrespective of whether the state owns any portion of the source code, CMI agreed, in the RFP, to provide the attorneys representing individuals charged with crimes "in which a test with the (Intoxilyzer 5000EN) is part of the evidence" information necessary to comply with a court's order. We conclude that the commissioner's ability to enforce its contract with CMI constitutes an adequate legal remedy.
None of the four circumstances justifying the issuance of a writ of prohibition...are present in this case. We, therefore, hold that the court of appeals properly denied the commissioner's petition for a writ of prohibition.
See more CNET content tagged:
Minnesota, source code, prohibition, defendant, Police Blotter






Nobody's disputing that drunk driving is a serious offense, but those accused of it have just as much right to defend themselves in court as everyone else.
Holding both the accuser and the accused responsible for their actions is what helps create a society based on the rule of law. Otherwise, we'd be a police state. I for one prefer the former.
i think they should raise the blood alcohol level to maybe .10 or .11 and then not plea bargain. better yet do it by weight to alcohol.
the system isn't set up to save lives. it's set up to the state's advantage. like confiscating cars and officers do get a commission on traffic citations you know.
in my drinking days i witnessed people's lives destroyed by the ideology that a 250lb plus man is impaired at .08. i can't in good concience ruin people over hysteria.
personally i think bars should be outlawed. buy your embalming fluid and puke on your own floor.
I don't know of any state court that makes law, either.
The fact that the 'breath-o-matic' is based on a z80 microprocessor is a laff at best. They might as well use my commodore 64 playing jumpman...
_s
The question I ask myself is, "Why would they need custom software?". 99 out of 100 times off the shelf solutions work best.
I would like to see the software myself I would bet that it is under commented and has lots of stuff like "if (0==1) {....}
The issue is the source code of the machine that tests if the guy was drunk or not. By the law, he was or wasn't. The machine needs to be accurate.
the only differences from the "antiuqe" s&w 900 that have been implemented, at increasingly high tax-payer expense are technolgies to remove operator interference.
the computations are high school chemistry.
at some point technology is about communication, not complication.
I agree, it's a good thing the source code is out. As an Engineer everthing I do right down to my calculations can be called into question in a court. Software and the professionals who right it are no different. Even if they think they are.
you missed a few commas, as well.....
Sounds like too many "edumacated professionals" I have to deal with on a daily basis in the construction industry; (that I have to correct in the field.)
GO BOOK SMARTS!!!!
(No field experience!!!)
Radar Gun software the next time someone gets a ticket?
Traffic Lights software the next time someone claims it short-cycled on them and that's why they ran it?
C'mon this is a story about a drunk driver that actually got caught and is fighting for his sorry life with a defense attorney trying to make a name for himself.
Determining if someone is legally drunk at the scene is not that hard to determine these days.
US law should MANDATE a blood test on the spot to go along with this breathalyzer test to put an end to this issue.
Code used for enforcing laws *must* be made available. Otherwise you lost the right of facing your accuser.
stop forcing blood,hair and urine from the body which, is unconstitutional no matter what a politically correct supreme court says. then, just outlaw any aroma of alcohol on the breath or in the automobile. seal all containers and make it a violation to transport a broken seal.
outlaw bars and by the drink alcohol.
essentially what they have done is set up a complex money making system for the state and insurance companies and are doing nothing to save lives or help people. which is basically what the war on drugs is all about.
Roadside blood tests? Yeah, I could see that going south real fast. People could argue with the chain of custody on the blood sample as it goes to the lab, or that it was contaminated, or that they got an infection from having their blood drawn on the side of a road.
Nobody is bleeding into the intoxylizer.
Nobody is bleeding into the intoxylizer.
So, that is, simply, NOT the real-issue. Anyone that keeps harping on that point, in this case, is clearly trying to confuse the REAL issue with a blatant RED-HERRING, ...or has some serious, personal, comprehension-problems.
The simple fact is that "citizens" DO have a "right" to question automated-techniques used by "law-enforcement" to obtain "criminal-convictions". THAT, is what was decided by this court... NOT innocence, nor guilt, nor moral-responsibility, nor societys right to protect itself from dangerous-criminals.
And, I totally agree with this ruling. The, very real, nightmare of "police-officers" being allowed to effectively point a -magic box- at you and obtain a virtually unquestioned "conviction"... is an absolute abomination to America, Freedom, Justice, or any legitimate form of "due process".
It DOES NOT mean that the "guilty" will walk-free... It merely insures that the innocent are treated fairly.
I would take a big sip of wine, blow into it, and it would register a .60, which is death. I feel that we must release the source code so we know the methods in which we are being arrested. If we allow ourselves to be filmed, then there should be some transparency on the law enforcement end as well.
Let's hope there's more and more of this occuring.
Making the source code available will either help to prove it's very accurate or prove that it is not.
Seems reasonable to me.
my opposition to the death penalty doesn't change just because someone i know is murdered.
either something wrong or right... just because something happens to ME doesn't change that.
oh, and you're an idiot. whoops, i said that already. but really... idiot.
yes, and i don't condone burning kittens. or axe murder. or axe murdering kittens.
let's just all ASSUME that most people aren't condoning DUI. i'm sure we can agree that we can debate this issue without thinking DUI is a peachy keen idea.
- Even with the source code
- by bluemist9999 August 15, 2007 8:09 AM PDT
- How do you determine it is accurate? And to what level does it need to be accurate for the conviction to be upheld?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (79 Comments)Proving a program does what it is supposed to do is the hardest branch of computer science.
It's likely a small piece of embedded software, written in Z-80 assembly language, with some lookup tables to match sensor inputs to BAC outputs.
If so, then the defense could challenge the calibration tables.
So, where does this end?