Secrets of the City

If the conviction is based solely on the test from the machine – yes. In the cases where source code was able to be reviewed they saw horrible coding standards what would not be acceptable in any modern business or government agency. And yet – if the machine spits out a number higher then the .07 – you are considered automatically guilty. This is a good thing.

The very same issue is being fought with electronic voting machines.

I agree with yoshi: If the entirety of the case is the machine results, toss it. Our rights- & freedoms-based society really takes it on he chin when law and order are dispensed from citation vending machines, regardless of how much we say we loathe the offense.

There are people all over the country (thankfully not here any more)paying municipal fines and higher insurance premiums because some gadget, build by whoever, is bolted up at intersection (that might have had its lights retimed) and has it’s (often questionable) functions enforeced by the full force of government.

I know ShotSpooter Rybak has dreams of automated policing in forever-broke Mpls, but this is an eye-on-the-ball moment. You cannot turn over your law enforcement to a private company that gets a cut of the action.

If you say PhotoCop and the lik are OK, then you have no arguements when the feds tap phones or local elections are decided by bad punch cards.

I blew at least a .10 at a party in high school. I’d had a root beer about an hour before the party got busted. Several others who hadn’t had a drop to drink did as well. The po-po finally relented to retesting us after someone begged loudly enough and we all passed.

And they said that the machine had just been recalibrated that day.

Lordy.

1. The machines are accurate as all hell.

2. The source code for these is more akin to what you’d run in a programmable controller than to a computer. “Coding standards”? C’mon.

3. The whole point in this fight is the neverending search for the question the prosecution can’t answer, because that takes you past “a reasonable doubt.”

4. However, if The State wants to use technology to provide the direct proof of guilt, it’s up to The State to get beyond witchcraft in its presentation. Right now, there are a ton of defendants and def attorneys out there kicking themselves for not making the source code demand in their motions, because most everyone (I think) who has that motion pending is going to be released or pled out to careless, and the rest – at least those for whom this is too late to make the motion – are SOL.

This is outrageous – I just went through this situation (we settled last week – had a .1 reading) and my lawyer didn’t even mention this was going on. Do you guys know if there is a chance we could go back and challenge this if the guy wins?

a friend of mine got a brethalyzer to test himself with before driving home and one night we were all blowing on it and getting wildly different results from one blow to the next. How hard you blow, taking a big breath before &etc all has an effect on the reading. They can tell if you’ve been drinking, but the … what is it, .07 or something? limit is kind of a line in the sand. It would work better if you had a zero tolerance policy, because all the machines are really good for is telling if you’ve been drinking at all.

“and my lawyer didn’t even mention this was going on.“

The guy you link to is no hack. Chances are, there’s some reason this wasn’t applicable to you. But, ask him. Quickly.

Wayne, unless your friend spent about $13,000 and carried it in a big poly suitcase, he wasn’t using a real Intoxilyzer 500EN.

The big problem is that CMI is also fighting the exact same thing in Florida, but in a 150-plaintiff class-action lawsuit. If it released the code here, the Florida plaintiffs would have it, and all they have to prove in order to win (I think) is that the code differs from the approved 1993 version.

Oh i did, i sent him an email right away. I wish i had read about this last week and we could have postponed the court date. SUX big time.

I still don’t know how well I trust the technology. And this is coming from a tech geek.

Haha, i just checked my report and it is the same model. 5000EN. That’s funny funny

RodG,

You deserve no sympthy, and no encouragement or assistance from MnSpeakers.

You messed up, by driving under the influence. You ought to be contrite and remorseful. If not, it’s likely you’ll repeat with this. Then you’ll need need to spend some time incarcerated at the workhouse.

(What an idiot.)

mr. hoffner was the hearing officer in housing inspections court today. nice guy, reduced my $200 fine to $50. although he made me feel like a doofus cuz i had to ask him what “abated” means.

yeah I still can’t accept drunk driving as an ok thing, even if the technology may be flawed.

in fact I really think there should be a zero-tolerance policy for drinking and driving. if you blow anything above a zero on that thing you drop the keys.

sorry suburban america, but building an environment where you have to drive somewhere to get your drink on was a really bad idea in the first place. you should have to live with the consequences (which I guess you kind of are with all the drunk drivers who kill people).

whatever, i only had 2 beers and was totally capable of driving. that’s why it was extremely odd for me i blew over .08. I would go for the zero tolerance rule as well if it were in place.

“However, if The State wants to use technology to provide the direct proof of guilt, it’s up to The State to get beyond witchcraft in its presentation. Right now, there are a ton of defendants and def attorneys out there kicking themselves for not making the source code demand in their motions, because most everyone (I think) who has that motion pending is going to be released or pled out to careless, and the rest – at least those for whom this is too late to make the motion – are SOL.”

Indeed. I can understand MN’s original argument that the source code doesn’t belong to them, but they now have a court ruling indicating otherwise. I would be surprised if they actually did find any issues with the equipment’s embedded code. But the question has been raised, and it’s up to them to compel the breathalyzer’s manufacturer to hand over the source code. Provide proof the equipment is accurate, and nip this in the bud (until someone tries the same thing with a different model and manufacturer).

well if you use equipment with closed-source code that you don’t have access to, how can you be sure it’s operating correctly to use it to prosecute someone? If results from some piece of eqiupment is going to be used as evidence in court, the source code for that eqiupment needs to be out in the open or at least accessible to the court.

I really think code for any piece of eqiupment used in trials should be required to be released if/when necessary.

It all goes back to the ongoing fiasco that is Diebold and their electronic voting machines. Time and time again, their software and hardware vote tampering measures have been bypassed with little to moderate effort.

I don’t agree necessarily that the code for breathalyzers (or voting machines) needs to be completely open source, but review of each version of the code by multiple independent panels of disinterested experts before being trusted by courts is a must. Perhaps this source code was already reviewed in such a manner for all I know. I’m not sure what the protocols are, if any.

“The source code for these is more akin to what you’d run in a programmable controller than to a computer”

Bobby, perhaps you’d care to enlighten this software engineer to the differences between code that runs in a programmable controller vs code that runs on a computer?

yeah, boy what’s this ‘embedded systems’ crap!?

you mean you use a different compiler? wtf?

I’ll give bobby a hint; firmware is a computer program that is embedded in a hardware device. That’s the difference, it can be written with a different language (see more compact), but doesn’t need to be so. To imply that it’s less prone to error because it’s hardware is ignorance. The cases when controller code is less prone to error are because controller code tends to be small simple instruction sets. e.g. movedevice(left)
Where as; this intoxilizer code consists of thousands of lines of code and is most certainly firmware and hardware both.

Wayne, you might not need the source code to prove the machine’s accuracy. You can test the machine’s accuracy before and after using it. Cops used to, I don’t know if they still do, test their radar guns before and after setting up a speed trap. I don’t know shit about electricity, but I know that when I hit the light switch, the outside light goes on. If I look outside and check a little before midnight to see that the light works and I check again at 12:15, I ought to be able to testify that the light was lit at midnight when I turned it on, even if I didn’t look outside. Someone contesting the issue shouldn’t be able to demand to know how the power company’s generators work and get copies of all the plans as part of investigation of the case.

At first glance the source code cases look like they could be more about imposing a lot of unpalatable costs and hurdles on the prosecution than they are about the actual accuracy or inaccuracy of the machine. The defendants aren’t subpoenaing the information themselves from the machine’s maker. They’re demanding the State get it. This is how lawsuits sometimes turn from searches for the truth into battles of the pocketbooks. I suspect the Department of Public Safety is mostly interested avoiding lengthy hearings on the science and computer codes every time they try to pull a license for DWI. Thier chief claim in the Minnesota Supreme Court was that once an instrument is certified by state studies and tests, Minnesota law prevents relitigating that science in every case.

The Minnesota Supreme Court didn’t decide the issue of what the State has to provide. It just decided not to interfere before trial with a district court order for the State to disclose the code. Another district court judge could look at these same knotty issues and rule the opposite way. The State owns some code for the machine that is specific to Minnesota but claims it does not own the “complete” source code demanded and claims it is prohibited by copyright from disclosing it. The Minnesota Supreme Court punted on this point. “Having carefully reviewed the record presented and the arguments of the parties, we conclude that we cannot decide the copyright issues raised.”

I’ve written embedded control software for a bar code scanner, and it was just as shitty as the rest of the code I write.

“sorry suburban america, but building an environment where you have to drive somewhere to get your drink on was a really bad idea in the first place. you should have to live with the consequences (which I guess you kind of are with all the drunk drivers who kill people).“

To what lengths WON’T you go in your quest for trains? Good grief, drunk driving is an evil brought to us by sprawl?

(Don’t forget hemorrhoids from all the driving, spousal abuse from lawn hate, and racial divide due to sidewalks.)

“Bobby, perhaps you’d care to enlighten this software engineer to the differences between code that runs in a programmable controller vs code that runs on a computer?“

Uh, sure, but could you move over a bit first? You’re dripping your condescension down the front of your new Help Desk tee-shirt and I just washed up.

The difference is in the relative simplicity and brevity, as you (I suspect) already know. You have very few functions being substantively run by code. The actual measurement of alcohol is done by an infrared spectrophotometer, which is giving its own variable readout directly and which is not subject to further “interpretation.” You have 3 basic cycles that can run, and the programming involved essentially only sequences the individual cycle types, (of “breath”, “clean air sample”, or calibrate”), and allows the user to select the cycle pattern (A-B-A, or A-B-A-B-A, for the states that require double-testing). The calibration only involves testing a known vapor sample, and the air blank cycle is just a test on clean air, so even the three cycles are designed, in the logic portion that directs them, pretty much the same. the other functions mostly involve a simple internal database of tests performed and calibrations checked.

Keep in mind that I was responding to Mr. anti-Diebold, whoo’d seemingly like us all to fervently believe that The Man has taken control of our TVs and our voting machines and our Intoxilyzers and probably airplanes as they pass World Trade Centers. I’ll stand by my comment about his commnt (which, to remind you, was “in the cases where source code was able to be reviewed they saw horrible coding standards what would not be acceptable in any modern business or government agency.“)

“I can understand MN’s original argument that the source code doesn’t belong to them, but they now have a court ruling indicating otherwise.“

Not to quibble, but . . . okay, to quibble:

The court didn’t say that the State has any right to that source code. The State has been saying that it doesn’t have any right to it and so can’t get it, and what the court did now say was that, if the State wants to rely on the machines in prosecutions, it will turn over the code. So, the State can either say “we can’t get the code”, and then try to make all of those expensive Intoxilyzers into Heathkit-inspired smoke alarms or wifi modems or really cool ashtrays, as long as they don’t try to cite to them in court anymore, or the State can say to CMI “no more sales until we get your code, plus we’re gonna sue you for what we’ve paid for all these machines.”

“The court didn’t say that the State has any right to that source code.”

Thanks for the clarification. Obviously I misunderstood the court ruling. Either way, if the state does manage to squeeze the code out of CMI (assuming they intend to make any effort to do so), I think this guy is going to find this was all for naught.

I am a bit confused with the rules. Officers can testify about how the defendant was driving, what he told them, how he performed in field sobriety tests, such as trying to balance on one leg.
——————
Angelinjones
DUI