Intoxilyzer source code update for January 2009
In his noted blog, California DUI Lawyer Lawrence Taylor wrote about the Intoxilyzer source code saga that is playing out in court across the nation. He points out that the manufacturer of the Intoxilyzer refuses to divulge the source code that powers the machine, and therefore renders the machine a "mysterious black box."
I couldn't agree more, and am appalled that Courts still allow the machine's results to be used against a DUI suspect. Meanwhile, the citizens of each state that uses the Intoxilyzer are footing the bill for the prosecutors to continually defend the use of the machines in court and protecting the manufacturer from having to divulge the code.
Mr. Taylor quotes an article from the Tucson Citizen which discusses why Arizona believes that it can't compel the company, which is based in Kentucky to appear in an Arizona court.
I think the real question is why do prosecutors continue to defend this machine, and why do law enforcement officers continue to use it? I think it must be because if/when the source code is shown to be biased, corrupted, inaccurate or worse, there will be a flood of appeals from convictions where these machines were used.
My supposition is that CMI will go gently into that good night. In Arizona, I have definitely noticed a decrease in its use over the past several years. More agencies are switching to a blood standard. Some are now taking both an Intoxilyzer and a blood test.
The era of rewarding brazen corporate greed appears to be coming to an end, and hopefully with it an end to business practices like those noted by Mr. Taylor and the Tucson Citizen article.
Until then the best weapon we have against injustice is to educate the public through blogs like Mr. Taylor's, through reporters who really want to get at the truth, and on a grass-roots level, one juror at a time.
That the manufacturer refuses to testify in court should be highly relevant to any DUI defense against the machine. If judges won't compel the company into court and won't suppress the results of the tests, the least they should do is admit into evidence the facts of this company's behavior, which should speak for themselves.
http://www.duilawblog.com/admin/trackback/104975
