Breathalyzers Come Under Fire in Court
Some while back, certain residents of Florida charged with DUI managed to get a court to hand them over the source code of the breathalyzer that had "proven" them to be drinking and driving. Now, in another victory for drunks everywhere, Dale Lee Underdahl of Minnesota has filed a similar petition and won. What is source code and why would you want it? Breathalyzers are basically computers with blow holes, and the source code is what makes them run. That source code is what sends people to jail. The defendants in these cases simply want a good look at their accuser. As Underdahl's lawyer said, "for all we know, it's a random number generator."
The breathalyzer in question in Underdahl's case is the Intoxilyzer 5000EN, built by CMI, one of nearly a dozen manufacturers of devices used by law enforcement. CMI's Intoxilyzer is used in more than 20 states. What's frightening is that the 5000EN is apparently based on the ancient Z-80 processor, which powered the Radio Shack TRS-80 desktop computer ... which went on sale in 1977. CMI has also been accused of making uncertified changes to the machines, and had to issue a recall due to faulty software.
In other words, Underdahl may be on to something. But to be on the safe side, maybe next time he should just call a cab.
From Engadget
Related Links:
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Larry D Cattin @ Aug 10th 2007 8:44PM
me
Doggydaddy @ Aug 11th 2007 8:03AM
You cant count on ANYTHING anymore.I understand that drunk driving is irresponsible and dangerous.However, cops dont care how they get their bust just as long as they get one.Innocent people go to jail every day because its just too much work to investigate a crime.Hell, half the cops out there are criminals themselves.They all cover for each other and family members while busting you and I for the same crap they cover up.
David @ Aug 11th 2007 1:33PM
I guess I just wrote all that for nothing! The whole thing is another scam!Foisted off on people that cannot afford legal representation. TR-80? I remember that litle unit; it was really nothing more than a beefed up Brother word processor. Boy if you have one that still works there are electronics museums that would be interested.
David @ Aug 11th 2007 1:34PM
I kind of suspected as much! The latest technology huh? Well Based on the TR-80 DT computer from of all people Radio Shack? Whoa! Everything I ever bought from them was faulty! Maybe there will be a class action and everyone who was ever convicted with evidence from these machines can get it taken off their record! That would be nice. It really drives your insurance costs throught the roof! Although driving while intoxicated is a big time no-no; I still don't think that people should be convicted of any crime with faulty information. I don't drink anymore so that solved that problem. Maybe there's a business opportunity here. Start a pool of designated drivers for people to draw from and hire them out for an evening at reaasonable rates. Sound like a winner?
Mike Sanders @ Aug 11th 2007 2:01PM
Ripping the Z-80, just because it's an old 8-bit processor is really stupid! Perhaps, the task which it performs, can be accomplished by a Z-80, with power to spare. I have a 4-cylinder Honda Accord... Some might argue that I should have a 400-HP Corvette engine, which can propel a car (Corvette) to 186 mph. I don't have the need for even half that much power and the Honda engine, like the Z-80 microprocessor, is a class act, even though it's specs are diminutive, when compared to other engines, designed for other purposes. It all depends on what it needs to accomplish. That being said, it is logical that someone facing a DUI might want to insure that the load requirements (what the source code expects it to do) are well within the capacity of the "engine." It does not require rocket-science to benchmark, trace and review the code. After all, if it runs on a Z-80, it has to be a fairly light task to begin with. Thus, it could be analzed by a third-party, in a matter of a few days, at minimal expense. Why would *anyone* object to making sure that the machine, which decides the fate of a person's life, be checked?
I understand the zeal of MADD, but to blindly state that this is a "victory for drunks, everywhere," is just as reckless as driving drunk. When you consider the penalties involved, I would want this thing to be certifed accurate, just like a piece of medical diagnostic equipment, which in fact, it is.
Mike Sanders
Saint Louis, Missouri
Jim @ Aug 11th 2007 4:43PM
David-
You're a moron. They're called Taxis.
Robert Walker @ Aug 11th 2007 10:01PM
Doggydaddy, Your as dumb as a sack of rocks.
Joe @ Aug 11th 2007 10:48PM
15,000 innocent people will be slaughtered by intoxicated drivers next year, the same as last year. Seems like the BAC machines are working pretty good...
jacobrat36 @ Aug 12th 2007 12:48AM
well my husband told me before we meet he was at a strip club drinking he walked out of the club and the cops grabbed him and arrested him for drunk driving and he was on his feet not in a car or anywhere near a car
Danielle Shumate @ Aug 12th 2007 10:02AM
i do think it is important to make sure the equipment in operational...but come on! they took the test because they knew they were intoxicated! are we forgetting the most important fact here people? do we honestly know how many lives are cut short because these idiots get behind the wheel of a car and attempt to make it home? how many mothers have lost their children? sisters have lost their brothers? husbands have lost their wives? and they have the audacity to object to the method of their testing? are you serious? if they have the balls to get behind the wheel knowingly intoxicated...then they should forfeit any leniency towards their outcome!
George 54 @ Aug 12th 2007 10:52AM
The calculation needed for the breath test is not rocket science, it could be done by the processor in your pocket calculator. The original Breathalyzer, in use since 1954 and still accurate, uses a simple light bulb to "see" the color change in the vial of chemicals brought on by the introduction of a breath sample to measure your blood-alcohol level. No computer at all and it works. So, if no processor is needed, why complain about a simple processor? It's all much ado about nothing. Everyone looking to get off on a technicality. The judges should not even entertain the argument, but since they're all lawyers, they let their fellow lawyers continue with such arguments.
Jim @ Aug 12th 2007 11:24AM
Drunk or not drunk is no the problem. We live in a country where the government wants to drag people into trial using a machine that spits out a number after someone blows into a tube and claim that number is evidence of a crime. The government wants to keep how that machine works a secret and how that number is derived a mystery. That is a Nazi mentality and the is no place for it in our courts.
Just as in its impotent fight against terrorism, the government want to cancel our long-standing privacy interests by listening to our phone conversations and reading our emails. Bottom line is that when the government can't win by playing by the rules, they just want to cancel the rules.
Drunk driving is a serious social problem as is terrorism, but if we lower the bar for these social problems that the government tries to use our fear of to justify diluting
Bruce @ Aug 12th 2007 11:41AM
Come on Danielle, why do they take the test when they KNOW they are intoxicated? The prosecutors always say the reverse, when a Defendant does not take the test its because the Defendant knows he's guilty! People elect not to take the test at great personal peril. You may not know this but every state has administrative penalties against your driver's license if you refuse to take a test, that is, you loose your license to drive for a significant period of time merely for refusing to engage the state's test to convict you. That's why people take the test, not because they know they are drunk. Also, because the police are trained to coerce the hell out of you until you do the test by saying such things as, if you don't take the test, I'm sending you to jail. If you do take the test, I'll let you go.
You remember the 5th amendment to the Constitution right, the one that says a citizen shall have the right to remain silent and not incriminate himself? Well, that pesky little amendment is out the window! If you do not blow in the machine you loose. If you do, your probably screwed.
So you see, the machine is actually quite important. Knowing exactly how this little "magic box" works is relevant because, as an earlier poster said, this box in many regards holds your fate in it's little computer brain. Therefore, knowing how the code is written and how the magic box evaluates your breath is crucial. In many cases, the field sobriety tests and other indicators, like driving itself, may not be indicative of alcohol abuse, but when that little machine says your over .08, you magically have a serious problem on your hands. A serious problem because now the police, the prosecutor and the jury will all PRESUME you are guilty, even though you may not be. Those machines are fraught with errors irrespective of the code itself.
So, congratulations to the attorney and defendant that got the code!!! I don't condone the use of alcohol to excess while driving. But I sure as hell do condone the right of an accused not to be a witness against himself, and to have the right to examine any witness, or machine, that the government uses in court to say a man is guilty of a crime.
adrian @ Aug 12th 2007 12:32PM
During Prohibition, when cars went 25 mph, alcohol was made illegal because it was considered sinful. Now alcohol is illegal again, and the reason it is illegal again is that the people pushing the legislation still think that alcohol is sinful. It has nothing to do with driving. Driving is their coverup excuse for their secret agenda of trying once again, to push their religious views on others. A lot of things cause crashes besides alcohol. Being a diabetic and going into a coma, for one. Being too old, for another. Being night blind, for another.
Melissa @ Aug 12th 2007 4:18PM
It's another way to police us and another way for them to make money. Drunk driving is dangerous, I agree, but now you don't even have to be drunk..And why put our livlihood on the line by using a trumped up machine? Money.
Melissa @ Aug 12th 2007 4:21PM
It's all about money. And a way to control and police us. Drunk driving is dangerous, I agree, but now you don't even have to be drunk. They lie in wait outside and assume you are. Why should they put citizen's livelihoods on the line with a trumped up machine? Money.
mrdickieweed @ Aug 12th 2007 6:03PM
I was arrested for drunk driving in Tampa last year....the cops pulled me over because they said that they had video (and showed it to me)of me going 87 miles an hour the wrong way down a one way street backward while firing a pistol out the window at streetlights....I said that it was only because I'm black, another clear cut case of "profiling"....when I was forced to take a breathalyzer test I beat the case because it caught fire and blew up from the fumes, which had also caused two troopers to pass out....fight for your rights people!..
Luther @ Aug 12th 2007 11:31PM
Here's what a fellow was telling me the other day: these machines will register an illegal level of alcohol even in the absence of any alcohol use. Red onions followed by a breath spray or drops (that have alcohol in the drops or spray) ingested before the breathalyzer is used will register an illegal amount of alcohol and will result in arrest. In our city the police are mandated to call the supervising officer with the more expensive and better calibrated breath analyzer that is more accurate. We had 2 councilmen who were arrested for DUIs and they had to challenge this issue and get it remedied since they had not been drinking alcohol before being stopped for a minor traffic violation.
George @ Aug 12th 2007 11:59PM
Bruce,
You have no protection under the 5th or 4th amendments with regard to driving, as driving is not a right, but a privilege offered to you by the state.
Luther, your example is not of "no alcohol use" if you spray alcohol in your mouth! ANY machine may pick up traces of alcohol. That is why the police are supposed to monitor you for at least 15 minutes prior to your taking of the breath sample. They are not going to let you use anything, not even chewing gum. And a big burp could put raw alcohol in your mouth, so its even supposed to be 15 minutes after a burp. But if you keep burping on purpose, they'll charge you with a refusal. And don't believe the statement that its stacked against you. I'll let you in on a secret- ALL breathalyzers actually are calibrated or, if manual, are started at [MINUS].02%, so you're actually starting off the test in the minus! Your councilmen came up with a good cover story to cover up a large gift given to them because of who they were.
John @ Aug 13th 2007 12:13AM
Come take a pee for peace.