October 11, 2008
Why Intoxilyzer Source Code Matters In DUI Cases
In DUI cases the state wants everybody to believe that the Intoxilyzer machine has been tested. Because it has been tested with known standards of alcohol, they want us to assume that it can also analyze an unknown. They also want us to assume that the software has no flaws or bugs that could render a false high under various conditions.
The source code of the Intoxilyzer matters because we need transparancy in the justice system. In Arizona, a first time extreme DUI (read as about average DUI of .150) requires 30 consecutive days in jail. This is serious. It also creates a permanent record. Very serious.
I believe that the constitutional rights of people accused of drunk driving are more important than a corporation's "interest" in the work product of their software.
If CMI continues to refuse to divulge the source code without conditions or exceptions, then law enforcement agencies and prosecutors should do the right thing and stop using them. Our government wastes a vast amount of taxpayer money. If we took all the Intoxilyzers in Arizona and threw them out (or recycled them), the amount of money lost on those machines would probably be less than the cost of convicting innocent people (they lose their jobs, stop paying taxes, etc), and the cost of litigating the cases combined.
If they don't let it out, then we should throw it out.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to comment
Comments on Why Intoxilyzer Source Code Matters In DUI Cases »
I agree with you. It would be far better if all test were blood. I hope that more and more Arizona Law Enforcement agencies will switch to blood. I think the main roadblock this happening is the cost of the additional laboratory facilites necessary to support such a change. I have recently suggested that a study of the addition facilities, personel and costs necessary to accomplish this be conducted. I think it would be helpful if the crimainal bar would also support such a step. However some attorneys might feel that such a step to all blood would make their job much more difficult. Still I do believe it needs to be discussed. I also do not want to see anyone wrongly convicted.
Re release of source code to the defense. A clause in ARS 28-1323 may create an exception to this requirement for the source code.
This statue says in part: (paragraph C)
C. The inability of any person to obtain manufacturer's schematics and software for a quantitative breath testing device that is approved as prescribed in subsection A of this section shall not affect the admissibility of the results of a breath test pursuant to this section.
This clause appears that it may create an exception to Rule 15.1
Would you care to comment on this?
The clause also appears to be unconstitutional. If the clause survives judicial scrutiny and is the reason that CMI scates out of this without having to disclose in AZ, then the legislature probably deserves the raise on this year's ballot because they would have outsmarted some of the best legal minds in the state.