Posts Tagged ‘dwi’

Why Intoxilyzer Source Code Matters In DUI Cases

Saturday, October 11th, 2008

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.

Courts complicit in framing future DUI murder charges?

Thursday, October 9th, 2008

There is an interesting post on Lawrence Taylor’s DUI Blog about linking previous DUI convictions to a future murder charge.  According to Mr. Taylor, upon conviction for DUI in California, the judges make defendants sign a statement saying that they understand that DUI is dangerous. That statement is then used to predicate murder charges (rather than manslaughter) if the person later kills somebody while driving drunk.

Prosecutors have been trying to make DUI murder for years. But this new strategy is the first that I’ve heard of the courts becoming involved. It seems to me that there would be a coercion argument. In other words, yes the person signed the statement, but did they understand it, and did they sign it willingly? Later, in a murder prosecution, the state would still have to prove the mens rea (mental element), which I believe would be difficult or impossible based only on the previously signed in-court statement. The prosecution would likely have to prove that the defendant not only understood it at the time it was signed, but also at the time of the accident that forms the basis for the murder charge.

Farting During DUI Arrest Gets Man Charged With Battery

Thursday, September 25th, 2008

During a routine DUI arrest, police charged a suspect with battery after he allegedly farted at the police station.

As a DUI lawyer, I talk with police officers nearly every day. Getting sworn at, spit on and much worse is part of the job, and it doesn’t usually phase the professional and experienced officers.

This is over the top and in my opinion destroys the officer’s credibility.  Here is a copy of the complaint.