A Minnesota man (not me) has demanded to see the source code for the breathalyzer that landed him in the clink.
Whether or not Dale Lee Underdahl would know what to do with the source code once it’s in his clammy hands is uncertain but “if a company proves unwilling to turn over the code, the case is often thrown out…”
The company that makes the Intoxilyzer is Owensboro, Kentucky’s CMI Incorporated. It doesn’t seem too willing to hand over the code and the state of Minnesota isn’t quite clear about who owns the code in the first place (it’s probably not Minnesota).
Machines such as this are often updated after they’re in the hands of law enforcement despite being state-certified first and newly-updated code can sometimes contain errors. If this is the case for Mr. Underdahl, he might be celebrating with a few frosty snow cones in no time.
UPDATE: It worked. He got the source code.
"Can I have your badge number and the source code to your breathalyzer?" [Ars Technica]
Seems to me that there can’t be anything that revolutionary or proprietary in the source code for a breathalyzer test.
Revolutionary? No. Proprietary? Very much so. Very competitive business.
I was always curious how they tested the things and how does one get on the testing team…
Sounds like he’s looking for reasonable doubt.
Since most software has bugs. It seems reasonable that if he could prove this software has a sufficient number of them or that it’s so complex it can’t be accurately tested he’d have a case to say it’s assessment of his status as a drunkard is also unreliable. No?
They are tested (usually daily) with an internal alcohol sample of determined purity and alcohol percentage.
Sure he got the source code, didn’t do him a bit of good, and he still got nailed. Thats a given.