Accident Reconstruction Network
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up to receive the Accident Reconstruction Newsletter
enter email:
For Email Delivery you can trust

Last Updated:


ARC Network NHTSA C.S.I.

FEATURES

COMMUNITY

DIRECTORIES

PRODUCTS

EDUCATION

MEMBERSHIP

Membership Services

Membership Information

ADVERTISING

SERVICES

Collision Magazine
CollisionPublishing.com

Collision Safety Institute
collisionsafety.net

Vetronix Crash Data Retrieval System
cdr-system.com

ARC Network - Accident Reconstruction NewsAccident Reconstruction Network > News > November 2005 > 11/03/05

Accident Reconstruction News Article

Breathalyzer source code must be disclosed
By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com

Florida police can't use electronic breathalyzers as courtroom evidence against drivers unless the innards are disclosed, a state court ruled Wednesday.

A three-judge panel in Sarasota County said that a defense expert must have access to the source code--the secret step-by-step software instructions--used by the Intoxilyzer 5000. It's a simple computer with 168KB of RAM (random access memory) that's manufactured by CMI of Owensboro, Ky.

"Unless the defense can see how the breathalyzer works," the judges wrote, the device amounts to "nothing more than a 'mystical machine' used to establish an accused's guilt."

The case, one of the first to test whether source code used in such devices will be divulged, could influence the outcome of hundreds of drunk-driving prosecutions in the state. So far, Florida courts have been split on the topic, with some tossing out cases involving breath alcohol tests and others concluding that the information about the machine's workings should remain a trade secret.

In one similar 1988 case, Florida defense attorneys discovered that the police had mechanically modified a breath test machine so much that its results were no longer valid and could not be admitted as evidence in a prosecution.

The Sarasota judges didn't require the public disclosure of the source code. Rather, they ordered that it must be given to a defense expert who will keep it in confidence and return it when his analysis is complete. That analysis could show bugs or reveal that the code was modified after the Intoxilyzer was certified for use by the state--meaning the device's output could not be used in court.

###

Back to Accident Reconstruction News

© 1997-2007 ARC Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
Any comments, questions or suggestions should be e-mailed to the ARC Network.

ARC NETWORK QUICK LINKS
Home | Member Home | Contact Us | Guest Book | Advertising | Web Site Design/Hosting | Locate an Expert Witness | Membership
AR News | Book Store | Corporate Directory | Discussion Forum | Education | Events Calendar | Expert Witness Directory
Newsletter | Organizations | Police Department Directory | Products Directory | Research Directory