Drunk drivers granted access to breathalyser source code

Florida judge rules in favour of accused drunk drivers

Tom Sanders in California, vnunet.com 03 Nov 2005

A panel of judges in the Florida county of Sarasota has granted a request by a group of over 150 citizens accused of drink-driving to view the source code of the breathalyser that was used to determine their breath alcohol levels.

Attorneys for the defendants had filed a motion to review the source code for the Intoxilyzer 5000 breathalyzer in October.

"The defendants have established that the source code is material to their theory of defence in these cases," judges David Denkin, Kimberly Bonner and Judy Goldman wrote in their ruling dated 2 November.

"It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the State shall produce the source code for the EPROMs located in the Intoxilyzer 5000 instruments … within 15 days of this order."

An EPROM (Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory) is a chip that holds the software running the breathalyser.

The panel of judges appointed Harley Myler, a professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering at Lamar University in Texas, to review the code. He also acted as an expert witness for the defence.

Myler will be prohibited from distributing any copies of the code, and has to return the code to the state following his review.

Florida approved the Intoxilyzer 5000 in 1993, but the manufacturer, CMI of Ownsboro, Kentucky has since made numerous changes which defence lawyers argue have not been certified.

The lawyers have also alleged that CMI had to recall its devices in at least one case due to a software error.

Myler testified that there appeared to have been changes in the software, but that he could not ascertain whether the changes were substantial without viewing the source code.

CMI has so far refused to discuss the case publicly and did not return phone calls seeking further information following the ruling.

Florida Assistant State Attorney Jason Miller expressed his disappointment at the ruling, and said he plans to file an appeal.

The state is unable to comply with the ruling because it does not own the source code for the breathalyser, and CMI is refusing to hand it over because it considers the code a trade secret.

"The people who have it won't give it out. Our hands are tied here," Miller told vnunet.com. "This ruling seems to be an effective suppression of all the breath tests."

Miller added that even without the evidence of the breathalyser test he would succeed with the drink-driving cases. "Our biggest concern is the safety of the public," he said.

But Robert Harrison, one of the defence attorneys, insisted that the state should go back to CMI and ask the company to agree to the independent audit.

Continued on page 2 >