When Dale Lee Underdahl and Timothy Arlen Brunner were both charged with DUI in separate cases in 2006 and 2007, they sought access to the source code for the Intoxilyzer 5000EN. Minnesota state officials resisted the defendants’ requests, claiming the software controlling the device was not relevant and, in any case, it was private information under the sole control of the machine’s manufacturer, CMI Inc. CMI claimed the information was a “trade secret” and refused a district court order to produce the code. This led to the prospect that the charges against Underdahl and Brunner would be dismissed for lack of evidence. So before this could happen, the state asked the court of appeals to strike down both discovery requests. The appeals court agreed with the state. The Minnesota supreme court found fault with the reasoning of the appeals court and split the difference.
It upheld Brunner’s request for the code and turned down Underdahl’s. In a partial dissent, Justices Alan C. Page and Paul Anderson explained the source code’s importance while arguing that Underdahl’s case was identical to Brunner’s.
In this case, guilt or innocence depends on Underdahl’s blood alcohol content. His blood alcohol content is assessed by the Intoxilyzer 5000EN. The source code of the Intoxilyzer 5000EN is the programming instruction used by the machine to assess blood alcohol content. The operation of the source code determines the reliability of the Intoxilyzer 5000EN’s blood alcohol content readings. The reliability of the Intoxilyzer 5000EN is a question that the jury will have to decide before determining Underdahl’s guilt or innocence. Thus, I conclude that the source code relates to Underdahl’s guilt or innocence and that, under Rule 9.01, subd. 2(3), its disclosure is required.
The majority, however, turned down Underdahl’s request simply because he failed to make a sufficient argument in the court’s eyes to establish the relevance of the breath testing machine’s underlying software. To require disclosure, the court ruled that the defense must make an argument to establish relevance. Because Brunner submitted nine exhibits to bolster his claim, the high court ruled that the district court court judge had the discretion to mandate its disclosure. Both of the DUI court cases can now move forward.
Other states have addressed the issue of the reliability of breath testing machines. In 2005, a lower court in Florida ordered the production of breathalyzer source code. Last year, the New Jersey Supreme Court reinstated breathalyzer use even though an examination of the source code revealed shoddy programming practices.
Just pay the thousands in fines and insurance fees and be a good little subject.
public void doBreathTest(int drinks) {
if (drinks> 1) {
return “Guilty!”;
} else {
return “Guilty!”;
}
}
Now in Ontario they dropped the level to 0.05. I sure wouldn’t want to be in the bar business. Three drinks and your going to pay thousands so people are going to be very leary about stopping for a drink after work. What a joke.
bluecon:
Now in Ontario they dropped the level to 0.05.
Actually, the legal level is still 0.08 – at that point, you’ll be charged with DUI.
At 0.05, you won’t be charged with any criminal or civil offense. You will, however, have your license suspended for three days on the spot, this will go on your driving history record, your insurance will go up, and you can’t appeal this or have a hearing because you weren’t charged. You were just punished.
Anyone see where that’s wrong yet?
And don’t forget, there are many influencing factors on breathalizer readings from how soon you blow into after someone else does, to interfering radio frequencies, which can skew the results.
lewissalem :
LOL. You’ve got a slight bug.
public string doBreathTest(int drinks) {
if (drinks > 1) {
return “Guilty!”;
} else {
return “Guilty!”;
}
}
I wouldn’t want your cases overturned due to faulty software:)
Now in Ontario they dropped the level to 0.05. I sure wouldn’t want to be in the bar business. Three drinks and your going to pay thousands so people are going to be very leary about stopping for a drink after work. What a joke.
So don’t drink after work. Three drinks, especially on an empty stomach and if you’re tired, is enough to impair many people. I felt the two pints I had while I was weeding the garden, and sure as shit wouldn’t drive.
I’m all for auditing the code on these, red light cameras and voting machines: it’s a great idea, and would do a lot to address their misuse as revenue-generators, but the real answer is very simple: if you are drinking, don’t drive afterwards, no matter how much you think “you can handle it”. It’s like speeding: if you don’t want a ticket, don’t go faster than the number on the sign. Or red/yellow light running: don’t speed up when you approach the intersection, let off the gas.
Don’t like it? Work to change the law. But you better be ready to explain how your wanting to raise the limit absolutely won’t result in any accidents.
I still find it funny that alot of the same people that are for low/no tolerance of DUI are the same people that have no problem yapping on the phone and ramming/almost-ramming people.
Should ban them both & be done with it.
Btw, I think it should be appended “if drinks > 0” :)
In NJ, police impound the car and remove the driver to police station for breathalyzer. even if you pass (legally sober), you still have to pay to get your car out of police impound. so it doesnt matter if the machine is faulty or not the police still get your money (personal experience).
quis custodiet ipsos custodes indeed.
I still find it funny that alot of the same people that are for low/no tolerance of DUI are the same people that have no problem yapping on the phone and ramming/almost-ramming people.
Are they? MADD and it’s ilk aren’t at all friendly to cellphone use while driving, and I’ve found that people who drive drunk are just as foolish about cell phones as they are about alcohol.
Or are you trying to play “don’t pick on my vice because someone else’s vice exists”?
The source code is of marginal value. Nice diversion but that’s all it is.
What you want to know is what were the machine purchase specifications and what testing was done to confirm the specifications were met.
If it has to match the blood test value within .001 and was proven to do so during the commissioning and subsequent use, game, set, match my friend.
If it was proven the results are all over the map, it does not matter if it is the source code, CPU firm code, or power cord.
Faulty? Hmm yup
The submitted code won’t even compile, is missing tests, no docs, assumes a lot… Did you take it from the production codebase?
public string doBreathTest(int drinks) {
if (drinks > 1) {
return “Guilty!”;
} else {
return “Guilty!”;
}
}
This will compile at least.
public class Tests {
public String doBreathTest(int drinks) {
if (drinks > 1) {
return “Guilty!”;
} else {
return “Guilty!”;
}
}
}
psarhjinian : >
What vice?
I think DUI & driving while yapping should/could be penalized equally.
A breath test does not measure intoxication. It measures (in theory) BAL.
This makes the State’s case easy.
1. Prove operation of the vehicle (a very loose definition)
2. Prove BAL over whatever the magic number is.
3. Profit in the name of safety.
The vast majority of DWI offenders who are dangerous are in the .15-.17 category. (really really NSFW – up)
When DWI laws were written, they were oft .12 or .15. Over time, realizing that that was a truly “blotto” number, it was lowered to .1, which is still “going good”.
MADD forced .08 at the federal level, with the same Highway Fund extortion as used to force 55 mph speed limits. Not all states wanted this and some fought…to no avail.
The problem is that the popular discussion is on the recidivist huge BAL chronic drinker. The rhetoric is used, though, to tighten the rope on any DWI offender, even a first time low level offender.
MADD wants .04…..so the way a breathalyzer works is key, now that we are going after those who have alcohol in the system but are not intoxicated….something you can’t easily measure. Unfortunately, the name of Chuck Hurley has been mooted for NHTSA head…the ex president of MADD and on record as supporting .04 (as well as 55 mph and photo enforcement)
No, you should not drive drunk…but on the flip side, we define that definition downward and penalize as if you were a hardcore DWI.
IIRC, isn’t .08 as “drunk” one of the highest allowances in the world?
Of all the reports I’ve read over the years aboout police officers or lawyers being arrested for DUI, I don’t recall one that didn’t mention that the officer or lawyer refused a breathilyzer test. Maybe they know the real story on these things, or find it easier to defend themselves by not “blowing”.
Carperson:
The source code is of marginal value. Nice diversion but that’s all it is.
What you want to know is what were the machine purchase specifications and what testing was done to confirm the specifications were met.
+1. Also, are the breathalyzers calibrated regularly?
I know a guy (not a friend, mind you) who has been arrested more than five times for DUI. He has done more time than most rapists and robbers ever do, and yet he has never even been in an accident, let alone hurt or killed someone. I’m not condoning drinking and driving, but it seems like arresting a person for a crime that might happen, rather than one that already has been committed.
The Future Can Be Seen. Murder Can be Prevented. The Guilty Punished Before the Crime is Committed. The System is Perfect. It’s Never Wrong. Until It Comes After You.