Man wins breathalyzer source code in court case

It looks like those alleged drunken drivers in Florida trying to get their hands on the source code to the breathalyzer that deemed them intoxicated may have been on to something, as the Minnesota Supreme Court has now granted just that to a defendant currently facing DUI charges in an unrelated case. According to CNET, the court ruled that CMI, makers of the Intoxilyzer 5000EN, must turn the breathalyzer's source code over to the defense attorneys, who said they needed it because "for all we know, it's a random number generator." Apparently, the case wound up focusing largely on whether the source code was actually owned by CMI or by the state, with the court ultimately siding with the latter camp, although not without a good deal of dispute. No word on a next move from either party, but we have a sneaking suspicion that it won't be too long before someone starts lobbying for the code to go open source.

[Asha @ Aug 10th 2007 6:25AM]

Oh, god. Why don't people take responsibility for their behaviour instead of trying to find away around getting busted for their mistakes.
Here is a thought: don't drive drunk!

"for all we know, it's a random number generator." Oh, please. What kind of argument is that?

[johnzilla @ Aug 10th 2007 10:42AM]

A perfectly valid, legitimate argument. Just because it is unusual or new doesn't make it invalid.

People have to understand one simple thing: anything a computer does is absolutely 100% suspect. It is not foolproof, it isn't even proof. A computer can be made to do anything whatsoever, and the they can be made to do anything whatsoever by people, who are by definition imperfect.

A simple perl program can create a couple gigs of syslog and firewall messages that can very convincingly show someone is into child porn, for example. If your coworker did that and sent it to your boss, how would you fight it?

People think that just because the computer says it is true, it actually is true. Not so. Computers are wrong all the time, by definition, because they're designed, built, and operated by people. Cops are wrong all the time, too...they're people, not perfect.

[caleb @ Aug 17th 2007 10:43AM]

If you're going to convict someone of a crime based on the output of a device, I think it should be required to know how that device works. Just because this particular device was sold as a breathalyser in no way guarantees it wasn't just a digital thermometer that moves the decimal point. There should at least be a certification and calibration process in place for the device.

[PJK @ Aug 10th 2007 6:31AM]

I'm not supporting using loopholes to get out of being a scumbag drunk driver. But there should be transparency on all of these kind of processes.

[NeoteriX @ Aug 10th 2007 7:14AM]

Exactly.

Same goes for voting--I'm not alleging that the prior elections were frauds and shams, but seriously, there is really no excuse for 100% transparency in the voting process. We should be able to see the e-voting machine source codes and verification process.

[ssuk @ Aug 10th 2007 6:52AM]

How long before the source hits the net? I give it 2 days.

[ssuk @ Aug 10th 2007 6:53AM]

(For all intent and purposes, I was joking.)

[Cpt.Scarecrow @ Aug 10th 2007 6:53AM]

If he really was sober he can't prove it with a source code.
If he wants to prove he was sober he should have claimed it at the moment of the breathalyser test and he probably would have gotten a blood test or something, with which he could have proven later on whether he was drunk or not by letting an independent lab retest his blood.

Now he's just trying to get out of it without even denying he did something wrong...

[Wworsham @ Aug 10th 2007 8:16AM]

Of course it is not the defendant's responsibility to PROVE he was sober. We allegedly believe in innocent until proven guilty in this country and it is the burden of the state to prove he was drunk, not the other way around. If they are going to use this machine to try and prove that, then he has a right to know how it works and if it works correctly. That all the assumptions that the software makes concerning the refraction of light in the tube of breath are correct in interpreting that into a blood alcohol content.

[Troy @ Aug 10th 2007 7:10AM]

Hmm, you engadget readers are on to something here. Don’t question authority, the Police are always correct, and gosh knows when government determines things based on secret software, it always works,

other then those voting machines. (Just a minor blip, I'm sure!

Are you all becoming “Patriot Act Zombies”? Wake up and make big brother stop being a bully. If the code has no flaws, why would they not open it up to make sure the machines are accurate? This is all anyone is asking.

[Speedmonkay @ Aug 10th 2007 7:38AM]

What kind of crap are you spouting ??
We are mostly just saying take responsibility for your actions. We arent saying cops and government are always right. The defense that the breathalyzer machine might be a random number generator is the craziest thing I have ever heard. I laughed so hard when I read this. All the guy did was buy time. Considering the article says it was a lengthy trial trying to get the source code, it was very expensive time after paying his attorney for the whole time. And once he gets the source code for the breathalyzer, guess what ? Thats right he finds out that HOLY SHIT it really is breathalyzer source code so it means his DUI charges stay!

(even if the source code does leak onto the net I doubt it would do you any good because its not like you could hack it and cheat the breathalyzer while you are breathing into it.)

[Troy @ Aug 10th 2007 7:54AM]

When we are talking about measuring a .01 % difference in blood alcohol level via breath and not a blood test I think it’s important for the machine to be accurate. This machine is based on a Z-80 Processor and has variables that before someone’s life is changed, I want to make sure it’s accurate. I’m not defending drunk drivers. I’m putting the burden of proof where it belongs. You can think it’s crap, so be it. I suspect that when the Government gives one company complete control over an electronic metric there needs to be some oversight. This has been proven each and every time we have ran into this issue. Voting fraud goes back well before the faulty “touch screens”. As does DUI, there was just an officer who was awarded with cash and trips for the most DUI arrests in Tampa Bay. Rewarded for the most DUI arrests? It turns out many of his arrests were under the legal BAL, so guess what, cases had to be dropped. What’s the problem with making sure we are getting the most accurate information?

[Nicholas @ Aug 10th 2007 7:51AM]

The only way I suppose this could help him is if he was under the legal limit for his area, but even then, why drive having imbibed any alcohol at all? It's just plain stupid.

[myles @ Aug 10th 2007 8:30AM]

Drunkards will do anything to save their ass from jail, the defense attorneys representing them are certainly desperate.

"Your Honor, the source code has a few unused variables in it; it must be completely wrong! And random!"

"Is there even a random number generator used in the source code?"

"Uhhh, no, but it's random! Because my client is innocent! (Or so he pays me to say so)!"

[caleb @ Aug 17th 2007 10:49AM]

That has to be the lamest straw man argument ever.

[farfisa @ Aug 10th 2007 8:32AM]

Just think if Lindsay or Paris had that source code! They could've... uh...

[Common Core 2 Duo!! @ Aug 10th 2007 9:17AM]

Not spent time in jail! oh wait....

[h8rain @ Aug 10th 2007 9:19AM]

I will not ever defend drunk drivers, because they deserve to have the book (if the source code is long enough to be a thick book, throw it at them), but I will say the source code should be available to the public or at least some testing should be in place to ensure the devices are working properly. Like once a month, someone drinks and it is tested by multiple ways (breath, blood, pee(?)), and by multiple machines to ensure they all come back with *EXACT* same results. I remember Mythbusters doing a bit on beating the breath test and they deemed all busted, but at the same rate they did a bit on the drug test, and you can easily get a "false-positive" on a opium(?) test for eating poppy seed bagels/muffins.

So drunk drivers have no excuse and should be punished (ESP. if they are a repeat offender (which IMO they should NEVER be allowed to drive again)), but this is still America, and someone should be testing the test equipment to ensure they are operating correctly.

[popeye @ Aug 10th 2007 10:16AM]

That the source code should be questioned under the circumstances is certainly reasonable, but that the defendant's lawyer may be using this as some kind of protraction is worthy of question.

And that some yobo questions the analytic capabilities of a device because in his estimation an old microprocessor from the 70's must be worthless (my inference...), ummm let me point out to you all that many of the space shuttle systems run on 8080's...

I'd also point out that a LEO typically uses several methods to determine whether or not the subject may or may not be intoxicated, the breathalyzer being one of them and they do require setup and calibration on a regular basis if the results are to be admissible, much like the speed guns they zap you with.

[johnzilla @ Aug 10th 2007 10:56AM]

Yeah, and there's never ever been a case of a person just signing off on the test checklists wihtout actually performing the tests so they can leave early on a Friday, or because they're pissed off at their girlfriend/wife/boyfriend/husband after a big fight, or because they just got passed over for that big promotion they think they deserved, or because they're in a union and doing a work slowdown, or because they're just not happy, or because they just don't care, or because they themselves are drunk or high or stoned, or because their mommy didn't love them enough as a kid or ....

[David @ Aug 10th 2007 10:59AM]

This is the way our legal system is supposed to work. If the police are using a tool to collect evidence, the accuracy of that tool should be scrutinized. Only someone be prosectuted has the right to scrutinize the tool, which is called having "standing".

[Loonie @ Aug 10th 2007 12:08PM]

All source code of this nature should be open source and fully open to scrutiny, none more so that voting software.

[RAD Moose @ Aug 10th 2007 12:21PM]

There is an advantage to this. If the code is proven to be solid, then it knocks out this "loophole." Everything should be challenged. If the driver was DUI then he was and this product proved that. If there is a problem with the product used to determine it, it should be resolved and that evidence should not be allowed in court. I hope that they prove it is solid.

[johnzilla @ Aug 10th 2007 12:36PM]

Agreed.

You would think the product vendor would be begging to show their source code. Imagine the sales boost for their products if their product was validated by an independent third party's analysis, which then in turn was validated by the court.

If they're worried about giving away trade secrets, they could do the whole thing under a court-imposed seal to protect their secrets.

Perhaps the company is not involved, but if they are involved in this case and are balking at showing their source code and other details it only makes their product less trustworthy in my opinion.

[Mr. Yetti @ Aug 10th 2007 2:19PM]

I have no sympathy for people who knowingly drive while drunk. The problem is, this machine hasn't been put up for public inspection. We don't know how it handles gender differences, body mass differences, or even the well-documented differences between casual drinkers and alcoholics. (The same goes for the law BTW, but that's a different little speech). The system may even be stacked one way or the other - we can't know without public scrutiny of the code. But really, the guy probably -is- just trying to get off regardless of being blatantly incapacitated.

Am I the only one who thinks this is slightly Atari-looking?

[PEZ @ Aug 10th 2007 5:06PM]

It sounds pretty valid to me. If it happened to you and you WERENT drunk, I am sure you would take action.. if you werent an idiot.

[Dan Reilly @ Aug 11th 2007 4:34PM]

h8rain said-->>
So drunk drivers have no excuse and should be punished (ESP. if they are a repeat offender (which IMO they should NEVER be allowed to drive again)
Soo, apparently you believe that therrte is NO SUCH THING as redemption. Just exactly the MADDiocy. What if the driver didn'y even DO anything? No one was hurt. No property was damaged. You still, in all your smug self-righteous indignation believe that just because someone happened by chance to get caught DUI they should be relegated to a life of poverty and alienation from society. Isn't the pupose of our justice system and penal system rehabilitation? Yeah, even the penal system. Read that: penal..related to punishment. once the punishment is meted out that shouold be that. Price paid. Move on. But, NOOOO.. You and all the MADDiots believe that NO punishment is enough. There is no such thing as redemption, forgiveness or another chance., ESPECIALLY if that low-life drunk driver didn't learn the FIRST time, he should NEVER have ANOTHER chance. Let me see..did you learn your multipication tables the first time they were taught to you? Did you possibly have to have then explained to you? Just because someone doesn't accept something verbatum at his first exposure, he is automatically incorrigible-beyond salvage? Is every citizen supposed to accept that a law or its reasoning is in fallible? Is that infallibility supposed to be dictated by a special interest group? MADD insists that anytime one gets behind the wheel after imbibing in any alcohol they are a drunk driver..and they WILL kill somebody. What happens when they DON'T? Well, SURELY, the NEXT TIME they WILl kill someone! What happens when that STILL doesn't happen? Punish them anyway. and punish them absolutely! And, remember, they can NEVER be rehabilitated, or given an opportunity to do it again. Because they most certainly WILL!
Of course with that logic, we should give the death penalty to ANY criminal deemed "violrent". Becaiuse if they don't kill now, they will sooner or later. The Constitution be damned! Cruel and unusual punishment be damned! No such thing! After all, MADD, says so.
And the fact that MADD and the National Highway Transportation Authority's "facts"are not only wrong, but they are a deliberate fabrication and misrepresentation be damned too! Why would my government ever lie? Never mind that NHTSA is mandated by law to provide true and accurate statistics. That doesn't matter if the end justifies the means. after all, how can we expect EVERYONE to be bound by the law? Certainly not those whose propoganda we have accepted, or those causes we like! The law only applies to those we have reason to hate or wish to control. Oh, or those we hope to put at a disadvantage to enhance our OWN position. Because what **I ** want is really all that is important. So what if all I want is vengeance against anyone who I think may have, or might in the future hurt ME? Injustice? Never heard of it. Injustice is only done against ME! Everybody else gets anything they deserve, especially if *I*(or my mob) get to decide what they get!