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:
- Urinal Game Tests How Drunk You Are
- Texting and Driving Equated to Drunk Driving
- Using GPS to Discourage Drunk Driving





Disney World Scammers Scored Four Years of Free Vacations
Rookie Cop Reportedly Berated, Called 'A Rat' For Arresting Off-Duty Officer
Stranger's Kiss Keeps 16-Year-Old From Committing Suicide
Walmart Ending Membership in Conservative Group
Apple CEO Tim Cook interview at D10: the liveblog
How I Went Bankrupt at 23
Can a New Guy Save Best Buy?
Woman Claims Kangaroo Stalked Her for 2 Days, Then Attacked
Beyonce 60-Pound Weight Loss: Queen B Flaunts New Figure During Comeback Concert Series
Rodents Run Amok at Upstate New York Walmart















Comments
23
Subscribe to commentsMichaelAug 16th 2007 2:09PM
I have been using the CMI machine since our department bought it in 1993. I am an opeartor and maintaince officer.We are a large department of over 4000 members. We use this machine daily.
The only error it will make is one which will result in a LOWER bac that the correct one.
The MYTHBUSTERS did a segment on the same machine.Adam & Jamie did things to that machine that it was never designed for.IT STILL WORKED PROPERLY. Myth busted as they say.
Defense lawyers only use the machine to create the appearance of doubt where none actually exists. Thank God the judges in Pennsylvanis at least are smart enough to realize this.
Every time I have seen an actual blood test compared to the intoxilyzer the result has been HIGHER that what the breath showed. Why does the defence complain about that?
John WattAug 17th 2007 11:46PM
I have always thought that anyone who fails the breathalyzer test was too impaired to consent to the test - the results should not be used.
GARRY EGANNov 24th 2007 9:11AM
ANYONE THAT BELIVES COPS DON,T HAVE A QUOTA TOO MAKE EVERY MONTH IS NUTS ! THEY,LL FIND ANY WAY TO REACH IT!