Closed Source -> Charges Dismissed? 700
Snorpus writes "According to the Tampa Tribune, judges in the central Florida county of Seminole are dismissing DUI charges when the defendant asks for information on how the breath test works. Apparently the manufacture of the device is unwilling to release the code to the state, and all four judges in the county have been dismissing DUI cases when the state cannot provide the requested information. Could this apply to other situations where technical means (radar guns, video surveillance, wire-tapping, etc.) are used to gather evidence? " I'd not plan on this as a legal defense, but the question it raises - of public access to information - is an important one.
radar guns (Score:3, Interesting)
Voting machines? (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems to me that one place this could really matter would be if a precedent were set that affected all the electronic voting machines cropping up in recent elections (with not such a great reputation so far, IME).
Pulic Right to how it works (Score:5, Interesting)
Red light cameras (Score:5, Interesting)
What I want to know is, who owns the pictures? Sure, the cops own the ones that they get from the company, but what about the others? Are they private property or is everything produced by the cameras public property?
Let's say I'm accused of some crime and my defense is I wasn't there, I was driving around. And I drove through a bunch of red light cameras (without necessarily running a red light). Can I get access to the photos?
Re:easy solution (Score:5, Interesting)
So the possibility that someone may have a genuine concern over the reliability and accuracy of a police enforcement device doesn't enter into your world-view of human rights then?
Best not put too much vinegar on your chips tonight.
Re:Pulic Right to how it works (Score:3, Interesting)
Irish Voting Machine source (Score:2, Interesting)
As a matter of fact, do not trust these things. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:radar guns (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:radar guns (Score:2, Interesting)
-dk
Re:That's insane... (Score:3, Interesting)
The main part of this case is that the law says you are drunk with a particular BAC. It is the defendents right to see how law enforcement calculates that number and challenge the process with his own expert if he wants. A bloodtest for example, can be invalidated if they use alcohol to sterilize the area before drawing the blood. For all we know the software in the test in question contains a rounding error that could invalidate it's tests.
Re:Slip of the mind.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Years ago in my old home town, the 30 limit on a particular piece of road was moved 200m down the road, away from town. This was previously a 60 limit, a nice big wide road, with no houses or turn-offs on it. This was done at about lunchtime. That evening, the police stopped everyone speeding (doing the old 60 limit) down this section of road. All were asked if they had seen the new speedlimit signs. Most said no. All were let off the speeding charge with a warning. 2 weeks later, everybody who had said that they did not see the new signs was summoned to court for driving without due care and attention (if they did not see the new signs, they could not have been paying attention, right?). Bigger fine, more points!
Moral of this story? Keep a lookout at road signs, even if you have driven the same route for years!
Re:Not wnating to set a precedent. (Score:2, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:radar guns (Score:3, Interesting)
I find it very difficult to believe that a cop would pull you over for doing 10 km/h over the limit. You're quoting km/h, so I'll assume you're in Canada or Europe, not the US. Here in Ontario, a cop won't even blink unless you go by him at at least 20 km/h over the limit. They always knock the ticket down to the next lower level anyway, to discourage you from fighting it (if you fight it in court, they go back to charging you with the actual speed, rather than the reduced one, and if you lose, you get the corresponding increased fine and demerit points). If you were actually only going 10 km/h over the limit, then he'd likely only write you up for going 5 km/h over the limit, which is about a $15 fine and no demerit points. It's not worth the time and paperwork to do it. It'd cost them more in paying the cops time and the courts paperwork than the fine even costs.
Can you post a link to a scan of the ticket that says you were going 90 km/h in an 80 zone?
Re:Pulic Right to how it works (Score:3, Interesting)
Reminds me of the questions raised by people in several cities when red-light-running cameras were installed on a profit-sharing plan. The photographs provided no proof that the light was even red at the time, other than the fact that it was taken, and computers never do the wrong thing, right?
Innocence knows no bounds (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Pulic Right to how it works (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Sounds like a huge open-source business opportu (Score:5, Interesting)
One group wanted to make an alcohol tester, they asked around with the police but couldn't get any information so they wound up having to invent the thing themselves (sounds a lot harder than it actually was, basic components are available).
In the end they had built in a few weeks time a machine which was much cheaper and notably more accurate than the device the police uses.
Now "cheaper" can be easily explained by the quality of the casing, being hygenic and such but "accurate"... this had me seriously doubt the quality of the devices the police use.
p.s. They apparently had a great time testing the machine!
Re:radar guns (Score:3, Interesting)
Both speeds are on the ticket. The officer documents what he actually saw, then has the discretion of charging you with whatever he wants. Here's a scan [kombat.org] of one of my speeding tickets, with the two different speeds highlighted. He radared me actually going 107 km/h in an 80 zone (The code "R 107" highlighted in section "B"), but he only charged me for going 95 km/h (Section "A"). If I'd chosen to fight it, they'd have charged me with the original speed instead, and I'd probably have lost anyway. As it was, it was a relatively small fine, and no demerit points on my license.
Not the public (Score:3, Interesting)
Does the Pulic have the right to how these devices work, or just the procedures on how they are used?
This is not the public it is the court.
In order for the prosecutor to demonstrate something to the court beyond a reasonable doubt, one of the key areas of scrutiny is that the chain of evidence is established from the act to the court.
Interesting problem.. (Score:4, Interesting)
I recently defended myself in a moving violation case. I sat through the 6 prior cases where people admitted they were guilty but were basically just sad about getting a ticket (the usual crying-on-the-stand trick). One case even had its fine reduced! The girl skidded off the road and ran over a street sign!
Then my case came. When i cross examined the officer i caught him in several logical fallacies and he could not say exactly how i was guilty of violating the statute, as written.
But, none of that really matters. The judge decides what he wants to, and thats that.
I was pulled over, by the way, because last winter, when i pulled away from a stop light, my tires started spinning on my all-wheel-drive-with-snow-tires 130hp winter car. Instead of doing something dramatic like slamming on the brakes or abruptly lifting off, i just rode out the wheelspin, keeping the car in my lane and straight ahead, etc.
Cops dont "like" wheelspin, so i got a ticket. Specifically, my ticket was for "driving too fast for conditions". The other people that were convicted of this offense ran off the road, skidded through intersections, etc. One almost t-boned an officer.
I was particuarly amused with myself when i asked if i was violating the law the second the light turned green, given that my instantanous speed was zero but my tires were spinning. When i was stopped, was i driving too fast for conditions ?
Nevermind that last weekend i was teaching _other_ people how to drive safely at a racetrack. Nope, i'm a public driving menace, apparently. So says one agitated officer, and one judge.
Re:Police taser video (Score:3, Interesting)
The only thing going through my mind watching that video was "She's a total fake." I've done a fair amount of first aid training, and one of the first things we're taught is "The more noisy the casuality, the less there is wrong with them."
If she'd been in enough pain to justify that much complaining, she'd have been incapacitated. She wasn't in agony, she was just throwing a tantrum.
No sympathy here.
Re:OTOH (Score:5, Interesting)
I would rather send a person to jail than have someone who was drunk, get off on a technicality then kill your sister/mother/father/brother/best friend 2 weeks later because they are drunk.
You'd rather send an innocent person to jail then risk letting someone drive drunk? That's a bit of a slippery slope there. We have burdens of proof and innocent until proven guilty for a reason.
Besides which, the whole issue of DWIs is another issue (like terrorism or the war on drugs) that is being used to take away our rights. The minute I start a car in most states I give up my right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure (implied consent laws). And as horrible as drunk driving can be perhaps you ought to take a look at the NMA DWI page [motorists.org] and learn some of the myths and facts about DWIs and the 0.08 laws in particular.
And before some AC goes pointing out how I'd feel differently if I lost a loved one to a drunk driver let me say that my sister was run over on the sidewalk by a drunk driver. She spent three months in the hospital and it took a year before she could walk again. He had a BAC of 0.18. The cops didn't catch him because they were too busy sitting outside of the local bar waiting for some poor bastard who was a hair over 0.08 instead of patrolling around looking for people who were actually driving badly, such as this fool who was on his way to the convenience store to buy another 12 pack.
Re:Pulic Right to how it works (Score:3, Interesting)
The issue here is that the device might be fine under the standard calibration procedures which might be done in a temperature/humidity controlled environment, but the test you are given might be done in 120 heat on a very humid day and might and might have just been taken out of the policemans air conditioned car. It might also be mid day and in bright outdoor sunlight. The device might be using infrared light or some sensor that is temperature or heat sensitive or goes haywire when the temperature changes. As anyone that has tracked down failing parts in an electronic circuit with freeze spray can identify with even other parts, capacitors, resistors, IC's can be marginal and/or temperature sensitive.
You have a right to confront your accusers and to verify that not only was the device calibrated but that it works correctly and calibratedly under the conditions that the test was given. Don't you think.
Then there are the voting machines that the voting machine company won't release the source on and that leaves no paper trail. Aren't you getting just a little nervous.
I don't advocating drunk driving at all. I advocate complete information about an acusation. Look at the maticulous rules of evidence and chain of documentation needed to handle evidence to insure that the objects kept are the ones taken from the crime, and that no tampering was done. I think the same principle should apply to any device that give evidence.
Re:Sounds like a huge open-source business opportu (Score:1, Interesting)
Aw heck, why not extend your logic a little further. Why don't we hide the ACTUAL laws from people? That way criminals will not be able to use the loopholes either. Hell, this way people won't even know if they are breaking a law. Plus, this way we can make anyone a criminal that we want, no more trials.
You may think I am being a ass with this comment. But it has happened in history before. If you get a chance, try reading "The gulag archipelago". It is a tough read (translated from Russian), but the first few chapters deal with the Soviet legal system. They enacted laws that were imposible to NOT break (a gathering of more than three citizens is some form of a subversive gathering, so taking the bus to work, means you are guilty of subversion). This ensures that at any given time, they can scoop you up, and ship you off.
I know people don't like the transparency that we demand from our legal system, right up until the cops are at your door stating that "The crimetastic5000 has determined that you are a terrorist". Wouldn't you like to know exactly HOW the crimetastic5000 came to it's conclusion? I know I would. History is full of bunk science ("ohh, too bad about the shape of your head, the chart here says you are a paedophile"), if it is never explained or refuted, how can it be trusted?
[offtopic]
Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 31 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
[offtopic]
Simply brilliant.
Re:Pulic Right to how it works (Score:3, Interesting)
I doubt it is available online, but an actual case that backs up your statement took place in Beaufort County, SC in 1992. The county brings people in for a a breathalyzer. They don't do it in the field. So, one and only one machine is used. One night (and who knows how much longer than that) everyone blew a 0.21 - over the legal limit. After a while, the officers realized the ongoing pattern and tried it on themselves. They all blew a 0.21.
I remember this case, not because of the broken machine, but because of the problem of maintaining order in a prison. They knew they were going to drop the DUI charges on everyone who used the machine that day. It didn't take much time to get a list of names and realize that they had been patrolling Hilton Head (a rich, mostly white, tourist area) heavily. So, out of the couple hundred people in jail, they were going to releast pretty much all of the white people. Knowing this would cause a huge problem, they decided to wait until morning when everyone went into processing to see the judge. They just explained the situation to the people being let go and hoped for the best. Of course, it didn't work out that well. The rich whites got a lawyer and sued the county for holding them in jail overnight.
I got two gut feelings about this case. First, it is stupid that rules have to bent to keep people happy about race relations. Second, you had to be doing something wrong to get pulled over for DUI, make the officer feel that you certainly are drunk, and then be taken into jail for a breathalyzer. That doesn't deserve a big cash reward. Of course, most people say I'm an idiot.