NationStates Jolt Archive

Before, if you got hauled in on a DUI, what would they do? Take away your license? I don't recall a license being required to start a car. Boo hoo.

Now it is even more of a joke. Want to get out of a DUI charge? Challenge the breathylizers results by asking for the program source code and once the company refuses to provide it on grounds of "trade secrets," you are off scott free.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6448213/did/11752290/?GT1=7935

Two pages of crap.

Agreed, but you have to give the lawyers some credit. They came up with a pretty ingenious strategy.

I sense a Glass House Trophy in his future...

The joke about lawyers and sharks is not true. They're more like Zerg.

Jeez, why don't they just jail the DUI's?

I'm just glad the case here was rejected.

Gee, I think I'll run out and get smashed then drive a car...

AND GET AWAY WITH IT!

Gee, I think I'll run out and get smashed then drive a car...

AND GET AWAY WITH IT!

Not funny....

Not funny....

It really wasn't ment to be...

It really wasn't ment to be...
Thats not funny either:p

i wonder is cops may start taking blood samples as weel as breath test, just to back it up in court :confused:

bah, if you can't back up the science and prove the accurracy of your test in open court then you shouldn't be able to use it to convict people. the police shouldn't use tools to make there cases that are not open to scrutiny.

i wonder is cops may start taking blood samples as weel as breath test, just to back it up in court :confused:
And rectal probes!

And rectal probes!
and twenty hour interrogation sessions with stress positions and attack dogs in unnamed third party nations to get confessions.

bah, if you can't back up the science and prove the accurracy of your test in open court then you shouldn't be able to use it to convict people. the police shouldn't use tools to make there cases that are not open to scrutiny.

I used to work with these machines on a regular basis. It's my experience that blood results typically come in a little bit higher than breath results using the datamaster.

I agree with you though. The source code should be open to review and challenge. The state may have to pay a bit more for the machine in order for the source code to be opened, but if the company wants the supply contract badly enough, they should be willing to accept that condition.

science is a great tool for law enforcement, it helps make the system less prone to personal bias and subjective intepretation of the facts, but it needs to used in a way that is transparent or it has the opposite effect of making people suspect that it is being manipulated in some way to get a predetermined result.

Before, if you got hauled in on a DUI, what would they do? Take away your license? I don't recall a license being required to start a car. Boo hoo.

Now it is even more of a joke. Want to get out of a DUI charge? Challenge the breathylizers results by asking for the program source code and once the company refuses to provide it on grounds of "trade secrets," you are off scott free.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6448213/did/11752290/?GT1=7935

Two pages of crap.
you clearly have no idea what the concepts of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and innocent until proven guilty mean, or you do, but you just don't give a damn about them. You have also seemingly mixed up the ideas of moral guilt and legal guilt, they are not the same (or maybe you don't care about those differences either).

Think about it for a second, if the source code that makes the datamaster work is available only to a select few, then what is to keep those select few from making it possible to manipulate that code to ensure that certain people register a certain BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) anytime they wish? Experts will tell you that breathalyzer devices are off in their measurements of true concentrations by an average of 10%. A blood test is the most accurate measure of BAC, but it takes longer and costs a bit more, so police departments don't want to use them and instead rely on the Datamaster. Luckily, where I live at least, a person charged with DWI has the right to demand a blood test after the breath test and the police have a legally imposed duty to take "reasonable measures" to ensure that the request for the blood test is carried out (case law has established that "reasonable measures" do not require the police dept. pay for it or even give the accused a ride to the hospital/testing facility in many situations). Failure to take such "reasonable measures" after a demand results in the breath test info. being inadmissible in court.

Requiring the code be available for scrutiny makes it possible to ensure that anyone charged with DUI (DWI, or a "Dee-Wee," where I live) has the opportunity to prove that the datamaster's results were tampered with. On the flip side, making the code available will also allow the prosecution to prove the results were accurate and no manipulation took place and hence a DWI/DUI will "stick."

I applaud the attorneys that came up with the idea to demand the source code - they are truly ensuring the legally guilty are convicted and the legally innocent can establish their innocence.

Before, if you got hauled in on a DUI, what would they do? Take away your license? I don't recall a license being required to start a car. Boo hoo.

Now it is even more of a joke. Want to get out of a DUI charge? Challenge the breathylizers results by asking for the program source code and once the company refuses to provide it on grounds of "trade secrets," you are off scott free.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6448213/did/11752290/?GT1=7935

Two pages of crap.
Well then, I guess they need to go with the blood test route?