Fwd: Breathalyzer source code decision

[Bipin Gautam]

Could this hold true for our court system too, n complicating any
judiciary process.
Interesting judgment, read below.

---------- Forwarded message ----------

<http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/05/mn-supreme-court-says-yes-to-intoxilyzer-source-code-requests.ars
>

The Minnesota Supreme Court has finally ruled (PDF) on the contentious
issue of giving drunk driving defendants access to the Intoxilyer
500EN source code. Defendants have repeatedly claimed that the devices
are (or might be) flawed; since the machine's breath test results are
one of the main bits of evidence against them, justice demands that
they have the right to examine the device firmware for accuracy. The
justices have agreed—but only for defendants who have a reason for
looking. Fishing expeditions don't qualify....

...

Without the ability to produce the code, the state could find its
drunk driving cases in jeopardy. Following the Brunner blueprint,
defendants could simply submit the same report, demand access to the
source code, and file for dismissal when they don't get it. The state
is anxious not to have this happen and is currently suing CMI over the
issue; according to the Supreme Court, "at the time of oral arguments,
the State and CMI were working toward a settlement to give DWI
[driving while intoxicated] defendants access to the source code after
the State sued CMI on the basis that the State has property rights to
the source code."

-------------------------------------------