DUI - US challenge to machine accuracy
Discussion
This is probably a lawyer's ploy, but ...
An attorney for a Minnesota man accused of drunken driving says he doesn't think the manufacturer of a breathalyzer will meet a court-imposed deadline of August 17 to turn over its source code.
If that happens, his client could go free.
As CNET News.com reported earlier this week, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled late last month that source code for the Intoxilyzer 5000EN, made by a Kentucky-based company called CMI, must be handed to defense attorneys for use in a case involving charges of third-degree DUI against a man named Dale Lee Underdahl. CMI's historic resistance to such demands has led to charges being dropped in at least one case outside of Minnesota.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6202038.html
Mark this one down as "citizen concern over what's inside the boxes we live with".
Streaky
An attorney for a Minnesota man accused of drunken driving says he doesn't think the manufacturer of a breathalyzer will meet a court-imposed deadline of August 17 to turn over its source code.
If that happens, his client could go free.
As CNET News.com reported earlier this week, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled late last month that source code for the Intoxilyzer 5000EN, made by a Kentucky-based company called CMI, must be handed to defense attorneys for use in a case involving charges of third-degree DUI against a man named Dale Lee Underdahl. CMI's historic resistance to such demands has led to charges being dropped in at least one case outside of Minnesota.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6202038.html
Mark this one down as "citizen concern over what's inside the boxes we live with".
Streaky
Chrispy Porker said:
Mark this down as 'shyster lawyer trying to get drunk driver off on technicality'
Nothing to see here. Move along now.
There is just an outside possibility that the driver is actually innocent and that a lawyer truly concerned to see that justice is done is doing all that he can to show that his client is innocent. (Unlikely I know, but ….)Nothing to see here. Move along now.
When there is a presumption of innocence then the ‘system’ attempting to prove guilt has to be totally open to any from of scrutiny to ensure that not only is justice done but that justice is seen to be done. It is no different than the current debate going on in a number of different threads regarding the ‘dodgyscope’. Why would the equipment suppliers have an issue with releasing the software unless they have a concern that potential inaccuracies in the equipment will be discovered?
Chrispy Porker said:
Mark this down as 'shyster lawyer trying to get drunk driver off on technicality'
Nothing to see here. Move along now.
But also put it under the sub-heading of "police using equipment they don't understand, that has only been verified as being reliable by people who are in a position to make money from it; with expert evidence always being given by the director of the company owning the device, and with no reason for anyone but innocent members of the public to seek the truth about what the TRUE margin of error is in the device", and also "Police Ignorance about Faulty Equipment" Nothing to see here. Move along now.
tigger1 said:
Chrispy Porker said:
Mark this down as 'shyster lawyer trying to get drunk driver off on technicality'
Nothing to see here. Move along now.
But also put it under the sub-heading of "police using equipment they don't understand, that has only been verified as being reliable by people who are in a position to make money from it; with expert evidence always being given by the director of the company owning the device, and with no reason for anyone but innocent members of the public to seek the truth about what the TRUE margin of error is in the device", and also "Police Ignorance about Faulty Equipment" Nothing to see here. Move along now.
It'd never happen here of course, would it?!?
I dislike DUI types as much as the next (other than the rare medical/next evening type ones) I do agree with this to a large degree. The reason behind this sort of legislation is to stop those in authority taking the pi$$ and using just any old piece of kit. That it occasionally gets used to make sure they are complying is a good thing.
I don't know what 'third Degree' DUI implys but I suspect that there is plenty of other evidence to corroborate the fact the driver was pi$$ed.
Lawyers have been trying to get people off on technicalities since the early 70's in the UK.
I see this as a continuation of the same campaign, all be it in the US where different machines are used. The Principle is the same. Some people will try almost anything to get away with drink driving. always have. always will.
Lawyers have been trying to get people off on technicalities since the early 70's in the UK.
I see this as a continuation of the same campaign, all be it in the US where different machines are used. The Principle is the same. Some people will try almost anything to get away with drink driving. always have. always will.
According to http://www.1800duilaws.com/states/mn.asp third degree is with one aggravating factor (child in car, very over limit, etc) or refusal to give specimen.
According to that source you have the right to speak to a lawyer before giving a specimen. Providing you're not too p*ssed to take his advice...
I think it's great that there are regular challenges to the law - it makes it more likely that process will be accurately and fairly followed and that justice will be more likely to be available to all rather than the rich who can afford a lawyer to create a new loophole. I'm sure that as a result of the challenges over the last 30 years the procedure, taping of sample taking, text for the caution when failing to provide etc etc have been tightened up no end.
According to that source you have the right to speak to a lawyer before giving a specimen. Providing you're not too p*ssed to take his advice...
I think it's great that there are regular challenges to the law - it makes it more likely that process will be accurately and fairly followed and that justice will be more likely to be available to all rather than the rich who can afford a lawyer to create a new loophole. I'm sure that as a result of the challenges over the last 30 years the procedure, taping of sample taking, text for the caution when failing to provide etc etc have been tightened up no end.
Chrispy Porker said:
I don't know what 'third Degree' DUI implys but I suspect that there is plenty of other evidence to corroborate the fact the driver was pi$$ed.
Lawyers have been trying to get people off on technicalities since the early 70's in the UK.
I see this as a continuation of the same campaign, all be it in the US where different machines are used. The Principle is the same. Some people will try almost anything to get away with drink driving. always have. always will.
That is obviously true, but it's just as true that justice and the law needs to be totally transparent. Nobody should be able to be sentenced on the say so of a machine who's makers say it is accurate "because it is". You want to use a machine to convict a person of a crime, then your machine should be open to absolute scrutiny.Lawyers have been trying to get people off on technicalities since the early 70's in the UK.
I see this as a continuation of the same campaign, all be it in the US where different machines are used. The Principle is the same. Some people will try almost anything to get away with drink driving. always have. always will.
Chrispy Porker said:
I don't know what 'third Degree' DUI implys but I suspect that there is plenty of other evidence to corroborate the fact the driver was pi$$ed.
Lawyers have been trying to get people off on technicalities
You call it a technicality. I call it that the law applies to everyone.Lawyers have been trying to get people off on technicalities
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff