Failed a Breathalyzer Test? Maybe It’s a Bug

By Michael Santo
Contributing Writer, RealTechNews

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.”

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attorneys discovered that the police had mechanically modified a breath test machine so much that its results were no longer valid and could not be admitted as evidence in a prosecution. Source: ZDNet

We Say: We watch way too many shows involving forensic science in my household … from the fictional, such as C.S.I., to the reality based, such as Forensic Files. After reading this story, I could think of a whole host of legal challenges that might occur because of this, requiring a lot of review and work. I could also see the reasoning behind this. I have always felt scientific forensic evidence to be the only truly reliable evidence (studies have shown that eyewitnesses are often not). Based on the 1988 case mentioned above, as well as other incidents such as the Jacquelyn Blake investigation into DNA mishandling, eliminating any question of impropriety or error in these cases is the only way to be absolutely sure people are treated fairly … but it may take a long time and a lot of money.