Update on the Intoxilyzer case

Full Story - Ars Technica

This story has been developing for a while now.  First Florida, where the results of breath tests in more than 100 local drunken-driving cases were deemed inadmissable to evidence.  the validity of those breathalyzer tests has been challenged for more than three years because of the Intoxilyzer 5000, a machine that uses a breath sample to measure a person’s blood-alcohol content.

Recently, the judges ruling in that case was affirmed by the appeals court, and stands.  Meanwhile, in Minnesota, the state Supreme Court ruled that DWI defendants had a right to examine the source code of the Intoxilyzer 5000, as long as they provided suffecient reasoning for why it may be evidence in their defense.

Arizona courts came to a similar conclusion, but Kentucky based CMI is still resisting.  They haven’t given the Source code to any state that has asked for it, claiming it is a “trade-secret”, that if they reveal it, a competitor may copy it and compete with them (oh noes!).

So, while the issue of DWI defendants being allowed to examine the source code of the Intoxilyzer 5000 (or any other breathalyzer) has been fairly resolved by many states, there is still the issue of CMI handing the source code over.  Because they refuse to hand it over, many DWI defendants get to walk free because of a lack of due process.

Ars Technica excellently sums up the cost of proprietary, closed-source software:

It’s gotten so bad in Minnesota that the state has gone to federal court this year, charging CMI with a host of contractual failures and asking for more than $75,000 in compensation. With police departments now losing confidence that an Intoxilyzer reading will lead to a conviction, many have switched to blood and urine testing. Such testing puts a “heightened burden” on the state’s laboratory budget.

Even worse, with confidence in the devices plummeting, the state says that it may need to “replace its entire fleet of breath testing instruments” and retrain every officer who uses them.

Closed-source can be anti-competitive, as indicative of CMI’s attitude toward releasing the source code.  Closed-source can negatively effect economies, as indicative of the money that states have to spend to find ways around not having the source code.  Closed-source can actually drive you out of business, as indicative of Minnesota’s suggestion to switch vendors.

CMI won’t last long if things keep going the way they have been.
All links related to this story

Manatee judge tosses DUI breath tests

Source code requests force breathalyzer maker to sober up

MN Supreme Court OKs breathalyzer source code requests