Standoff over breathalyzer source code in DUI case

Not too long ago, we reported on a case brought to the Minnesota Supreme Court wherein a defendant in a DUI case asked (and was allowed) to view the source code of the breathalyzer machine which was used on him. Well, there's a new chapter in this book, it appears, as Minnesota authorities have missed the deadline for handing over the code to defense attorneys, thus dramatically increasing the chances that the defendant will be getting his case dismissed. Apparently, the Minnesota state public safety commissioner would not supply the source code, and the Department of Public Safety offered no explanation for the refusal. The state previously argued that it doesn't have the rights to hand over the data, as it is actually the copyrighted property of CMI -- the company who manufactures the machines. CMI has not been forthcoming with the source code in the past, leading to blunted or thrown out cases, though Court judges say the state must do whatever it takes to procure the software, even if it means suing CMI. A court hearing scheduled for September 19th will likely decide the defendant's fate, though we doubt this is the last we've heard of this case.

[jason @ Sep 5th 2007 10:41AM]

Brilliant. You know the government was just scratching their heads when he wanted the source code.

[Sean @ Sep 5th 2007 10:46AM]

They're not going to turn over the source code. They're faced with all sorts of dilemmas, so instead of turning over the code, they are going to simply let this particular case fall through the cracks and give the man a freebie.

[CongoZombie @ Sep 5th 2007 10:55AM]

Hmm, maybe this kind of defense can be used against the RIAA and BPI somehow...

[R1cebrner @ Sep 5th 2007 11:01AM]

Maybe they will release it to the public afterwards and if you blow a particular sequence of breaths it will automatically read that your not drunk and drunk driving will become even worse of a problem that it already is...

And then maybe in this particular persons case they didn't drink enough to be over the limit and thats why they are using the legal system correctly to prove him self innocent. in a system that we are to proven guilty.

[SubGenius @ Sep 5th 2007 11:05AM]

Couldn't everyone arrested for drunk driving use the same tactic from now on?
Could the same tactic be applied to the radar guns used to catch speeding motorists?

[KO @ Sep 5th 2007 11:26AM]

The danger to using this is that if you are found guilty, then your chances of getting probation before judgement are somewhat slim. Jail time....

This is probably a last ditch effort in a violation of probation situation.

So I am not immediately going fight the man...

[masher @ Sep 5th 2007 11:20AM]

@SubGenius it is used for Speeding tickets the problem is its not worth the money to fight the majority of speeding, you have to pay for court costs, lawyer fees etc. and by then you might as well pay the ticket. Everyonce in a while a story like this comes up for speeding tickets and the person gets off because the companies wont turn over there source which is understandable but at the same time the public has the right to check to these technologies for false readings and false positives. All the police/sheriffs departments will have to do is start taking blood tests when they get back to the station and there is no source code they need to show there. Its just the amount of alcohol in your blood so there isn't a way to fight that. Other then maybe saying its against your religion to be poked with needles. Not sure how else you could fight that.

[ntrlsur @ Sep 5th 2007 11:52AM]

By law the police can only ask you to take a breathalyser. In most states if you refuse the breath test then they automatically suspend your license for 30 to 90 days. The police can not compel a blood sample from someone without a court order. Unless you were involved in a car accident resulting in injuries to someone other then yourself. To do so without a court order is an invasion of privacy.

[Trent @ Sep 5th 2007 3:39PM]

Taking a person's blood without their consent isn't just an invasion of privacy. If someone took my blood by force I would be pressing the DA to charge them with felony assault with a deadly weapon. Forcing a piece of metal into someone is assault, no different that stabbing someone really (even if in practice it does less damage)

[Anthony @ Sep 5th 2007 11:27AM]

Maybe he'll learn his lesson when he doesn't even get a slap on the wrist...

...or when he kills someone.

[Trenton @ Sep 5th 2007 12:35PM]

Sounds like you live in the land of guilty until proven innocent. There's a reason things are setup the way they are.

[TeckniX @ Sep 5th 2007 12:23PM]

It will be interesting to see where all of this ends up - I do believe a random number generator Breathalyzer would be funny

[TrevynPaige @ Sep 5th 2007 1:47PM]

Will that work on a Mac?

[Adam Robinson @ Sep 5th 2007 12:45PM]

Yes, but can it play Doom?

[mark r @ Sep 5th 2007 8:30PM]

Seriously so jerks who put thousands of lives at risk by driving drunk now have a way of getting off the hook by asking for the source code which they're probably completely unqalified to analyze in the first place. Breath test + Cop says you're drunk = You are drunk.

Brilliant.

[jimmyfinch @ Sep 5th 2007 9:44PM]

Phil Spector should ask to see the source code.

[Andrew Bell @ Sep 6th 2007 1:06AM]

I find this whole debate entertaining as it covers something that is going to become more and more common.

It was raised that it is not worth the money to fight speeding charges and I agree completely, the costs are such that to take time off work and attend and pay for experts and everything associated with no guarantee of winning meanas that these issues will only truly be tested by the rich or those with a chip on their shoulders.

However.... What will happen when computers can be more of an issue with more expensive claims? My Father in law is a mechanic and is frustrated that he is able to repair less components because of the increasing computerisation in cars. Before long there will be accidents and it will be blamed on the car, not the driver. For this to be proved beyond reasonable doubt the prosecution would need to disprove that it was a software glitch and the source code would need to be available to do this.

If there is a traffic accident - can you get the source from the traffic management software? How much trust should we be giving to applications controlling devices that can cause a lot of damage?

I'm more than happy to discuss this with anyone who wants to take it further; my contact details are available at http://blog.terabell.com/contact/

[Benjamin Wright, Hack-igations.com @ Sep 8th 2007 12:15AM]

This story is a specific example of a big phenomenon in our legal system, caused by technology.

Information technology begets an ever-growing ocean of records. Records are irresistable to a legal investigation. Any investigation naturally wants to delve into all the relevant records. The relevant records in a drunk driving case include even the source code of the breathalyzer used to determine the driver was drunk.

Net result: legal investigations and prosecutions grow ever more expensive and difficult to close. In any controversy, there are always more records to inspect and argue about.