On CHOW: Groundbreaking hangover cure
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet

By Declan McCullagh
Posted on ZDNet News: Nov 3, 2005 11:10:00 PM

Florida police can't use electronic breathalyzers as courtroom evidence against drivers unless the innards are disclosed, a state court ruled Wednesday.

A three-judge panel in Sarasota County said that a defense expert must have access to the source code--the secret step-by-step software instructions--used by the Intoxilyzer 5000. It's a simple computer with 168KB of RAM (random access memory) that's manufactured by CMI of Owensboro, Ky.

"Unless the defense can see how the breathalyzer works," the judges wrote, the device amounts to "nothing more than a 'mystical machine' used to establish an accused's guilt."

The case, one of the first to test whether source code used in such devices will be divulged, could influence the outcome of hundreds of drunk-driving prosecutions in the state. So far, Florida courts have been split on the topic, with some tossing out cases involving breath alcohol tests and others concluding that the information about the machine's workings should remain a trade secret.

In one similar 1988 case, Florida defense attorneys discovered that the police had mechanically modified a breath test machine so much that its results were no longer valid and could not be admitted as evidence in a prosecution.

The Sarasota judges didn't require the public disclosure of the source code. Rather, they ordered that it must be given to a defense expert who will keep it in confidence and return it when his analysis is complete. That analysis could show bugs or reveal that the code was modified after the Intoxilyzer was certified for use by the state--meaning the device's output could not be used in court.

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

  • Talkback
  • Most Recent of 34 Talkback(s)
Accurate?
Here's some anecdotal evidence for you (of which I am NOT proud) . . .
Though I don't drink these days, when I was a young man, 25 years ago, I often drank too much and was known to drive when dru... (Read the rest)
Posted by: HiRezL Posted on: 11/07/05 You are currently: a Guest | | Terms of Use
Go straight to the blood test  John Zern | 11/03/05
Depending on the test..  Patrick Jones | 11/04/05
How do you think they test the blood?  Sir_Chancealot | 11/04/05
You can't force a blood test  bidemytime | 11/04/05
Yes  Real World | 11/04/05
This varies by state  archerjoe | 11/04/05
Actually, you can (but you shouldn't)  cdgoldin | 11/04/05
Cautionary tale from my state  bidemytime | 11/04/05
Good choice!  cdgoldin | 11/04/05
More like a fairtale  DarthRidiculous | 11/06/05
Before you go and begin believing in your rights  rhavyn | 11/04/05
Blood Test required???  BernieLyons | 11/04/05
Yes you do in NJ  DarthRidiculous | 11/06/05
I don't feel like doing that...that would hurt...  Grayson Peddie | 11/04/05
Technical information on devices used to convict someone must be public!  Root User | 11/04/05
Does the device work as intended?  Anton Philidor | 11/04/05
Sorry, I disagree.  Root User | 11/04/05
When a device must be accurate...  Anton Philidor | 11/04/05
States are interested in convictions, not accuracy  rhavyn | 11/04/05
The Courts worked...  Anton Philidor | 11/04/05
Just don't rely on the courts every time  rhavyn | 11/04/05
Faux naif argument  Anton Philidor | 11/04/05
I disagree  Real World | 11/04/05
What happened to testing?  salmon | 11/04/05
Yes and no.  Dr_Zinj | 11/04/05
finally somebody thinking "lowtech"  bongo_z | 11/04/05
Ivory tower thinking  cdgoldin | 11/04/05
Accurate?  HiRezL | 11/07/05
Forgot to mention...  cdgoldin | 11/04/05
Voting Machine are as Important  jtmort | 11/04/05
Not true, properly designed voting procedures will  Update victim | 11/04/05
But what if ...  cdgoldin | 11/04/05
They can and do force blood test  rhavyn | 11/04/05
Driving NOT a privilege  WCarlS | 11/04/05

What do you think?

advertisement
advertisement
Click Here

White Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

SmartPlanet

Click Here