Intoxilyzer 5000 Source Code: It's a State Secret

Cobb County DUI lawyer Rob Leonard posts an update over at the Georgia DUI Blog about CMI being ordered by a Georgia Judge to turn over the source code for its Intoxilyzer 5000. The State of Georgia is appealing this ruling.

Well…what’s the “source code” mean anyway? It’s basically the software that tells the machine how to interpret the physical data it receives from the defendant’s breath, and how to convert it to BAC. The number it spits out (.041, .086, .119) is then compared to the so called “legal limit” of .08, to see whether the defendant is per se guilty of DUI. 

Defendants often want to be able to see how the machine analyzed their breath. CMI has fought and fought in courts all over the U.S. to keep this information secret. Apparently, we are supposed to take the manufacturer’s word that the machine is perfect.

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://blog.austindefense.com/admin/trackback/13953
Comments (7) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
E - December 23, 2006 4:22 PM

Why are you contesting it? Obviously the person is a danger to him/herself and others if their BAC is anywhere near .08. Other indicators prove that the person is DUI as well as the law provides that an LEO must have some proof of DUI before they can detain the person and ASK them to blow into the intoxilyzer. Remember, it is THEIR choice to blow AND their choice not to drink responsibly. Has NO ONE else responded to your blog? That must say something...

E - December 23, 2006 4:24 PM

After reading your disclaimer I now see why there are no comments logged. Apparently anyone who objects to your point of view does not get posted?

Jim - January 16, 2007 10:46 PM

I am totally flabbergasted at the DWI criminal system.

Right now I am charged with DWI in North Carolina along with a refusal charge. The officer and I were not getting along at all. There was a lot of yelling and screaming which basically came about through his total disrespectful tone and attitude towards me. When asked if I wanted a witness to the breath test I answered, "Yes, I would like an attorney."

At that point he slammed the phone book down on the table. I simply stated, I don't know anyone around here! He then went back to the desk took out a piece of paper and began writing.

After he was done he told me to come with him, which I did. He brought me in front of the magistrate and stated, "We have a refusal here". This cost me a one year revocation of my license which I am fighting, and I have yet to go to court for the DWI charge.

He never even gave me SFST's. The alcohol he smelled came from a topical medication which contains 67% ethanol. I had not even had a drink that day! Seems police have absolute power when it comes to dui anymore thanks to MADD.

LEO - April 10, 2008 8:16 AM

Sounds to me like you're lying. Don't give me that crap about the topical medication. If you weren't drinking, then why did you refuse the test? You would have been immediately cleared.

You're not telling the whole story.

J-Prosecutor - May 27, 2008 3:21 PM

Here is an interesting counter argument: why don't you try using empirical evidence already available to determine whether there is a flaw in the source code rather than trying to obtain the source code itself?

It seems quite a speculative argument to just "assume" there is something wrong with the source code. If you really believe that the source code is flawed to begin with and that the source code is the direct cause of an erroneous breath test, then why don't you just have your clients take a breath test and a blood test under State controlled/simulated conditions?

If there is even an iota of merit to your argument, then such a test would show a substantial variance in BAC, wouldn't it?

However, I highly doubt that would happen, because as we all now in the criminal field the TRUTH normally does not set your clients free.

This pseudo-scientific source code argument is just another lame defense tactic at hiding the truth and creating confusion.

Brenda - July 16, 2008 10:55 PM

Jim, I hear you...and feel for you. My husband was stopped in NC for a license check less than a mile from home. Officer asked him if he had had anything to drink and he said 2 beers at dinner a couple of hours ago (time of license check was almost midnight). He was taken downtown for breathalyzer. He wanted me there but we live 20 miles away from downtown and I didn't get there in time. He blew but didn't register. Charged with refusal and now we are fighting also. He is a truck driver and can't work until resolved. The laws are written for the guilty and if your not then your just SOL

LawMakerIsARightTaker - July 2, 2009 2:45 PM

What is in my body is of no concern to any control freak LEO. Internal possession laws are a blatant violation of unreasonable search and seizure, as are the "no refusal" laws which allow police to use torture me (forcing a needle into my veins - nazis did it to jews) to gain their evidence.

Crime prevention and all laws that provide for it are a joke. If you are driving down the road, not swerving, or wrecking into anyone, you arent endangering society. There was a time not 20 years ago where you could tip your beer to the cop as you drive down the road. Society did not crumble, all the children in the kingdom did not die. We had as many drunk driving accidents then as we do now, the only difference is the massive $ racket the police have now that they can take anyone to jail for suspected dui. more tickets are given, more police are hired, people people in jail, more jails/prisons built, so that more slave labor and funding can be had.

"So poople have to get killed before we can arrest anyone? If my dui law saves one life its worth taking your rights away"

Freedom isnt free, and sometimes people do stupid things that kill themselves and other people. This happened before prohibition and will happen after prohibition for any substance or action, and no law will ever change this. So yes, an occasional over-publicized MADD kid dying is worth keeping my rights our forefathers fought so hard to earn.

Police agree with this plicy because it gives the the power to take literally anyone to jail. Its obvious the results can and are doctored to give the cop a desired result, and hiding the source code proves it. The cops just want another way to make money off the average citizen and this also gives them a way to remove any "undesirables" from society at will.

A law maker is a right taker.

Post A Comment / Question Use this form to add a comment to this entry.







Remember personal info?