Minnesota Supreme Court Rejects DUI Challenges Based On Buggy Software 391
bzzfzz writes "In a case with parallels to the Diebold Voting Machine fiasco, Minnesota's Supreme Court upheld the reliability of the Intoxilyzer 5000EN breath testing machine on a narrow 4-3 vote. Source code analysis during the six-year legal battle revealed a number of bugs that could potentially affect test results. Several thousand DUI cases that were waiting on the results of this appeal will now proceed. The ruling is one in a series of DUI-related court victories for police and prosecutors. Other recent cases upheld a conviction of a person with no evidence that the vehicle had been driven and convictions based solely on urine samples that may only show impairment hours before driving. The Intoxilyzer 5000EN is now considered obsolete, and replacement devices are being rolled out, with the last jurisdictions in the state scheduled to retire their 5000ENs by the end of the year."
Minnesota, eh. (Score:5, Interesting)
We're the only state that can lock you up for life without a trial; all it takes is a judge to agree that there's a risk you could offend again. In other words, you serve your sentence, and then an unappealable, arbitrary decision, by one guy, can have you spend the rest of your life in jail. Our laws in this state are so bad that the European Union refuses to extradite people here in several cases. I am not surprised that they just basically crapped in the pool of civil rights and then shrugged and went on with their business.
We've convicted people of DUI for walking down the street. Seriously. It was upheld on the basis that he could have gotten in a motor vehicle, because he had his car keys on him. Bonus: The car didn't even run.
Re:Minnesota, eh. (Score:4, Informative)
Well, shit.
- scratches Minnesota off the list of possible places to live.
Re:Minnesota, eh. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Minnesota, eh. (Score:4, Informative)
And to top it all off, our food is bland, and a kid can't even take a porn star to the prom without an uproar. This state is whack.
Speak for yourself. My food is awesome. You're probably doing it wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
We've convicted people of DUI for walking down the street. Seriously. It was upheld on the basis that he could have gotten in a motor vehicle, because he had his car keys on him. Bonus: The car didn't even run.
Do you have a source for that story? Because I've not heard about that happening. The only story I can find on Google is about a woman who was seen with an "unsteady gait" walking towards her car, and got pulled over because of it (the officer using the unsteadiness as probable cause, which is a stretch but still).
Re:Minnesota, eh. (Score:5, Informative)
Do you have a source for that story? Because I've not heard about that happening.
It was a local only story; It ran on the Star Tribune and WCCO also picked it up sometime last summer. Unfortunately, neither site maintains a (free) searchable archive, so I can't give you anything more than that. Sorry. What I can do is point you in the direction of an expert on the matter locally: Chuck Ramsay [mndwidefenseblog.com], who won last year's Attorney of the Year award for this state and specializes in DUI convictions.
Some highlights from the website include: Cases pending where a vehicle can be seized by the government for suspicion of DUI when a conviction is not obtained. Minnesota also has a habit of destroying evidence used in DUI convictions after 1 year regardless of if a case is still on appeal or not (by law, you can request a retest of any positive result by a different lab; But if the sample isn't available for retesting, this obviously poses a legal problem). There are also widespread fraud regarding log entries for maintenance of the machines; Officers literally xerox old logs, change the dates, and put them back into the official record. This has also been upheld by the Court; Go through the archives on the blog, you'll find all the citations you need there.
Re: (Score:3)
One guy is holding his car keys, so he gets arrested for Intent to DUI.
That'll teach those highschoolers to pick a designated driver!
It's not the only state by far (Score:5, Informative)
Most if not all states will lock up mentally ill people if they are a danger to themselves or others. The difference is that it's not "for life" but rather just until the next hearing, which may be anywhere from less than a week for a person just entering the mental-health-court system to more than a year away for those who have obvious, chronic, problems that can't be sufficiently treated to allow the person to be released. The other difference is that it's to a locked mental hospital not to a prison.
Also, many if not most states treat "highly dangerous sex offenders" basically the same way as MN under "civil commitment" laws. There may be a trial, but it's typically a civil trial and by the time the state decides they want to keep you locked up, they've got enough evidence to convince a jury to the level required in a civil case. In some states this is for a period of time and they have to do a new trial but the reality is, once you've been locked up under civil commitment, you likely won't get out until your health deteriorates from old age enough that even if you still hold dangerous attitudes you won't be a danger to the public if released.
Re: (Score:3)
The difference is that it's not "for life" but rather just until the next hearing
Much like copyright is established for a limited time. It's limited until the next extension act.
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like you believe the sole purpose of prison is revenge against the offender. I don't want to live in a society where that's the purpose of justice.
Re:Minnesota, eh. (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds like you believe the sole purpose of prison is revenge against the offender. I don't want to live in a society where that's the purpose of justice.
There's no belief here. Our country has the highest per capita incarceration rate of any country. Any [wikipedia.org]. And the rate accelerated dramatically since 1980, and continues to climb steeply year by year. Obviously this is not a sustainable trend; But it's quite clear that America has a very different perspective on what "Justice" is than the rest of the world... I'll leave you to your own opinions on what that perspective is. We also have the highest rate of capital punishment of any country, though if you removed Texas from the statistics, we would lose that distinction... so it is debatable. And we continue to expand extrajudiciary action: Guantanamo bay, seizing foreign nationals on foreign soil and indefinately detaining them... and we are also exporting our own citizens to other countries for indefinite detainment under semi-secret reciprocity agreements.
There is little doubt in the international community that the United States has become a police state, and continues to expand its use of military and covert force to extend its judiciary practices worldwide.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We don't have a different perspective on Justice, we simply have a for-profit prison industry.
4 or more countries top USA in executions in '11 (Score:3, Informative)
I won't speak to capital punishment rates, since in many US states capital punishment is a de facto life sentence.
However, America was no higher than 5th in executions per capita in 2011.
The United States carried out 43 of the world's 676 or more officially-acknowledged executions last year.
Some countries with higher totals:
* Iraq - 68
* Iran - 360 or more
* Saudi Arabia - 82
Some smaller countries with higher rates than America:
* Yemen - 41 or more executions
Source:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/news/death-penalt [amnesty.org]
Re: (Score:3)
It sounds like you believe the sole purpose of prison is revenge against the offender. I don't want to live in a society where that's the purpose of justice.
I hope you don't live in the US, because if you do, then you have not been paying attention for at least the last 30 years. The politicians have turned the penal system into something almost entirely punative because of the "tough on crime" meme. Rehabilitation is practically non-existant.
Re: (Score:3)
Rehabilitation is non-existant. Most convicts in the state of Ar
Re: (Score:3)
What also has to be said is that conservatives are A-OK with this kind of stuff. Evil people that they are.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
We've convicted people of DUI for walking down the street
We? I don't get it. Are you implying that you, yourself, are responsible for this injustice? How can that be, when you have just declared your moral opposition to it? Were you in favor of it at one time, and since have flip-flopped your position?
I take it the several-thousand-year-old concept of a democratic republic is somehow new to you? Or perhaps it's the idea of social responsibility you're having trouble with...
Why do I get the sinking feeling this particular AC falls into the 'under 25' age group?
Re: (Score:3)
Why do I get the sinking feeling this particular AC falls into the 'under 25' age group?
Perhaps because you are ageist.
With the current life expectancy in the US (a hopefully appropriate assumption in a thread about minnesota) of 78.1 according to google and an assumption that nobody under the age of 13 has the patience or interest to hang out on a tech discussion site, you are guessing that a particular AC falls within (25-13) / (78-13) ~ 18% of the pool of candidate ages. To level that out to be a reasonable guess, we would need to assume that those under 25 are 50%/22% ~ 2.8 times more li
Re:Careful there (Score:5, Insightful)
My children will be home schooled until they are old enough to understand the importance of education and have learned how to learn on their own. At that point, they will be allowed to decide for themselves whether they want to attend public schools, a private school if I can afford it, or continue home schooling. This is one of many decisions my wife and I discussed and agreed upon *before* deciding to marry; of course, the vast majority of couples who marry don't take the realities of the future into consideration, so decisions like this are set aside "until they have to be made" and one or both parties gives in, not wanting to argue, and the kids end up in an "educational" system that doesn't teach them anything useful (amongst many other "easy way out" decisions that get made when a couple simply can't agree on things), or they end up in a single parent home.
I barely graduated; not because I didn't understand the material, not because I had no desire to succeed, but because I was spending my time learning things above and beyond what was being taught in the classroom, rather than doing the classwork. I passed tests, I aced midterms and finals, but I was too busy, after having run through the provided textbooks in the first month or so of the class, seeking new material and learning new things that were *not* being taught in class, to waste my time on the classwork. This is a direct resuly of being taught, at a young age, how to learn on my own; and it has been instrumental in my success. The more I think about it, the more I also see a strong correlation between the actual ability to learn independently and the ability and willingness to take responsibility for one's own life and actions. That's what's greatly lacking in the younger generations and, to some extent, ours, as well.
I know I've touched on several seemingly unrelated topics in this post and most readers are going to think I'm just all over the place. That's fine, all I ask is that you step back and take a look at the big picture, I'm probably not as far out there as you think I am.
In order for a person to be willing or able to take responsibility for something, they must first understand that thing. In order for someone to understand something, they must be able to learn; if they can only learn when things are explained to them, rather than on their own, then that thing must be explained in terms they already understand. We're breeding generations now that do not know how to learn, do not understand their own actions, and take no responsibility for those actions, or their own lives, as a result. It's a vicious circle that can only get worse, unless those of us who see it happening and are willing and able to take responsibility, who see what's happening, get off our asses and do something about it. That said, I'm not sure what I can do, beyond simply not raising my own kids that way and writing my congresscritters to beg for change; if anyone has any workable ideas, I'd love to hear them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Careful there (Score:5, Insightful)
Often I fear for the future of this world, seeing the kind of people our socio/economic/educational climate is generating these days... Part of me feels that I'm just getting to the point where I no longer understand what it's like to be young, dumb, and full of reproductive fluids
CanHasDIY, 2012
I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond words... When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly disrespectful and impatient of restraint"
Hesiod, 8th century BC
Re: (Score:2)
The government is a representative democracy.
That's the claim. Have you proven it?
Therefore, anything done by the state, is derived from a mandate from the people.
And if the government violates its restricted mandate? If it has a single-digit approval rating? If the people aren't competent to make the deal? If the deal isn't hereditary?
The people are responsible for anything done by the state, QED.
Prove your terms first.
Re: (Score:3)
The people are responsible for anything done by the state, QED.
...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
In other words, we are not responsible for the actions of our gove
Re:Careful there (Score:5, Informative)
Except that the last time somebody actually tried to do that, we ended up in a civil war. Slavery was only the excuse. The issues of state's rights went out the window when the Union won, and there's the whole business of the wholesale looting laughingly refered to as 'the Reconstruction' that I won't even get into. End result? A stronger federal government contrary to the beliefs and intents of the Founding Fathers. The point of a weak fed was to keep massive government stupidity on a local or state-wide level, not to allow it to infect and infest itself across the entire country.
Too Bad (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So what you are saying is...this is some sort of religious conviction of yours? Because, I am of the opinion that the limits have been set so ridiculously low in some places that the law is a joke....a bad joke.
But hey, who cares that some studies even showed a person to be more safe after one drink. This isn't about safety, its about the perception of safety.
Re:Too Bad (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.fatiguescience.com/assets/pdf/Alcohol-Fatigue.pdf
Such as figure 1B, which shows, on average, how mean relative performance always decreases with any alcohol (albeit trivially up to about 0.04)
or http://addictions.uchicago.edu/carl/DandAlcDependence%20Brumback.pdf
That shows only with low doses of alcohol (under about 0.042 BAC) can you not really notice a drop in performance, and after that everyone, heavy drinkers or not perform worse in cognitive tasks and that the heavy and non heavy drinking groups mirror each other in performance.
I'd give more links but if you aren't on a university campus or somewhere else that they're free it's sort of futile, and I don't really want to keep mashing links until I find ones that work without academic library access (and where I am has a med school so we're subscribed to medical journals, places without a med school might not).
But hey, why not make up some facts that 'some studies' support your argument so you can create a perception of authority without providing those studies and when the most easily findable studies (when searching for terms like cognitive impairment and blood alcohol level, and other obvious search terms produce results that disagree with you?).
Now your first line, you hit the nail on the head, before you joined the nutter bin. It's clear that BAC less than about 0.04 has so little impairment (even though it is there) you need very large sample sizes for that effect to not get lost in noise. That applies to heavy and mild drinkers equally. So if where you live has a BAC requirement of less than 0.04 they're probably playing theatre or moral/religious grounds than evidence based policy. Anyone who's at about 0.05 or worse is making a judgment call on just how much measurable impairment is tolerable, which is all science can do. Politicians have to decide risk tolerance and cost benefit analysis, science merely quantifies the effect that creates risk, and sometimes the risk itself.
Re:Too Bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Applying the same standard, nobody gets to drive after 40 or before 25 years old. Measurable impairment and poor judgement and all.
Looking at the stats for actual drunk driving accidents it's apparent that .15 is where driving goes to shit. Even .10 was conservative. .08 is just about revenue.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't about safety, its about the perception of safety.
This is about safety.
Drunk driving kills approximately 40 times as many people as terrorism, about 8000 drunk drivers and 4000 people that just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, making it one of the top causes of death by trauma (the other contenders for this dubious honor being other car accidents, poisoning, suicide, falls, and homicide). It's a serious problem, and is a reasonable area for government to try to do something about it.
I'm not against getting drunk. I'm against drunk peopl
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Gotta get the car home so I can get to work tomorrow.
If they didn't want people to drink and drive home, then they'd NOT have all those nice large parking lots outside of the bars.
Drive past one that's open....see the cars in the lot. Drive past after closing time...see how many cars have left.
Do you even slightly think that even a minority of those people drove home below the 'limit', or had a designated driver? Please...don't kid yourself.
It is behav
Re:Too Bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Presumably, you are with somebody who *CAN* drive you home... and the next time you are there, it'll be your turn to drive.
The excuse that they have parking lots in bars should be an excuse to drive home after drinking is about as lame as "she was dressed like a prostitute" is an excuse to commit rape. And before anybody brings it up, I'm not comparing the severity of the two actions (drinking and driving to rape)... only the feebleness of the excuse, and all it shows is an immature reluctance to assume responsibility and accountability for one's own choices.
Re:Too Bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Alcohol affects people in different ways, what may be fine for you isn't fine for me.
Yes... and the solution is not your proposal of any alcohol means no driving. The solution is being responsible for your damn self and knowing how the shit affects you. If you can't drive after even one drink, then fucking don't. If I can without any issues of safety or decreased driving ability (especially when had with a big meal that the alcohol hasn't even had time to absorb into my system fast enough, because it hasn't been sucked out of the food that it was absorbed into yet), then let me drive and get the fuck off my lawn. And if some fuck abuses that responsibility and kills someone, then said person needs to take responsibility and take the consequences or find a new life where he can forget that it ever happened.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I completely agree. Any alcohol in my system, whatsoever, and I don't drive. I take a look at when I plan to depart, and have no more than one drink per hour that I plan on being there. Further, no alcohol for the last hour. Simple rules. By the time I get to the car, I'm as stone-cold sober as when I arrived. (For some people, this is still too much, depends on body mass, etc.).
However, translating my own rules on that to the law? No. If you're talking about a "zero-tolerance" law for drivers who a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Say that when a drunk crashes through your front door, or hits your parked car, or runs into your kid on the side walk, or hits an electrical box in front of your house. Should all those people have been free to decide whatever too? How about when you, with your perfect knowledge of how to drive is stopped at a red light and a drunk careens into the back of your car?
Sort of by definition if your judgment is impaired you're not capable of making a judgment about when its safe to drive. Governments then t
Re:Too Bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you even fucking READ the comment he was responding to? The GGP said he thought anyone with any amount of alcohol in his system whatever should not drive, and that's just plain retarded. In most places the limit is .08, and .08 is NOT drunk. At .08 a person is NOT going to "crash through your front door, or hits your parked car, or runs into your kid on the side walk, or hits an electrical box in front of your house."
In the context that your comment is in, I have no idea how you got modded to 5. Must be a lot of MADD members with mod points today...
Re:Too Bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Zero tolerance is a very easy and popular way to reach judgment with no effort. That's how he got modded up; nobody stopped and thought about it.
Re:Too Bad (Score:5, Informative)
What does that have to do with convicting people based on evidence produced by buggy software?
Drunk driving is bad, mmkay? Convicting people based on bad data is far, far worse. Don't let your rage against drunks blind you to a rather extreme disregard for standards of evidence. Someday it could be you who is falsely accused based on an invalid breathalyzer reading.
Re: (Score:3)
My apologies. Guess it was the GP who went off topic.
Re: (Score:2)
Trying to be dramatic requires being dramatic...
The most likely occurrence is certainly the drunk careening into a parked or stopped car. Although I have been in a bank when a drunk crashed through the door in the middle of an afternoon.
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed. There's a risk tolerance question. I posted in reply to someone below (but in reply to the same OP) something a bit more sophisticated. There's no meaningful dropoff in performance up to about 0.04 BAC, after that everyone starts to perform worse more or less equally. Beyond that it's really a matter for politicians to decide how much risk and what cost benefit is appropriate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Alright, I'm willing to compromise here.
You're free to drive drunk if you want. If you get into any accident whatsoever, there is a mandatory death sentence (maybe I'd be willing to further compromise to life without parole), and all of your personal assets are transferred to the victim(s).
If you want to take the gamble, go for it. Currently, you force that gamble on other people every time you put your idiot drunk ass behind the wheel.
This should in no way imply that I'm on the cops' side on this one tho
Re: (Score:2)
It might be fine for you. It might not be so fine for the motorcyclist you knock off and kill.
Attacking the problem from the wrong end. (Score:2, Offtopic)
Want to know why drunk driving is so endemic in the United States?
Here's a hint:
most bars in the US are in towns and suburbs where they are not served by public transit, AND, the are required to have parking spots for all their customers.
If ever there was a business that should be forbidden to have customer parking, it's a bar.
Of all the things about liquor laws in the US, this is the most insane.
most people I know drink responsibly (Score:2)
I see nothing wrong with having a pint and driving home. Even several pints, if I'm there for several hours.
Caveat--I'm a 6' 200lb male. My 95lb female friend may require different standards.
Re: (Score:2)
Want to know why drunk driving is so endemic in the United States? most bars in the US are in towns and suburbs where they are not served by public transit, AND, the are required to have parking spots for all their customers.
Then explain Springfield, IL. You can't throw a beer bottle in this town without hitting a bar with it; there are at least five within staggering distance from my house. Yet folks here still get plastered and drive.
Buggy software (Score:4, Funny)
Who knew they still made software for buggies?
if you drink, don't drive (Score:2)
its not that hard.
drink at home.
get a designated driver
take a cab home or the bus or he train
if you're drunk and in your car and get caught i have no sympathy for you.
Re:if you drink, don't drive (Score:4, Informative)
What if you're well under the legal limit and perfectly capable of driving safely but some machine says you're extremely drunk?
Re: (Score:2)
since you're going to be on police cruiser candid camera i'm sure you won't have any trouble passing the field tests
Re: (Score:3)
What, like the test where the cop waves the pen in front of your face and says "yeah he's drunk, because I said so." Or the one where you blow into the machine and it comes back saying that your body is 5% alcohol, and the judge doesn't see a problem there?
In other words, you're saying that it's OK to have buggy testing equipment, because field tests?
Re:if you drink, don't drive (Score:5, Interesting)
Many years ago I was at a bar in NJ listening to a band. I had 1 beer over the whole 4 hours I was there. I was younger and dancing my ass off so no time to drink. I was pulled over on the way back to my apartment. When they noticed my MN drivers license they asked me to take a breathalyzer, I did. When I passed it, they had another squad car there and asked me to take another one. This happened one more time before I refused. I had been breathalyzed 3 times and was still afraid that if I refused they would rough me up for not following orders. But, I finally said no because it was obvious that they were just hoping for a misreading. Then they all stood in a circle and talked and let me go. I was about 22 at the time and it has definitely helped to make me distrust police.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you probably should not be operating a motor vehicle when sober either.
Re: (Score:2)
if you're drunk and in your car and get caught i have no sympathy for you.
It's attitudes like this that cause people to drive drunk.
If someone's drunk and wants to do the responsible thing (i.e. sleep it off and not drive until sober), there is no incentive to do that because the penalty for waiting until sober is the same as the penalty for driving drunk. So might as well drive drunk and roll the dice.
Re: (Score:2)
the penalty for waiting until sober is the same as the penalty for driving drunk
Which penalty are we talking about, the one where you pay a fine or the one where you end up killed or maimed?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, I'd love to take a cab and pay almost $50 for the privilege...
Re: (Score:2)
and please link to the case?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On what planet? (Score:3, Insightful)
How did we come to a place where a judge can simply decide a machine, which has been proven unreliable, is in fact reliable? How will these people sleep at night knowing they are punishing people who were innocent? Is our whole society run by sociopaths now?
Re:On what planet? (Score:5, Insightful)
no, it was proved the software has bugs. all software has bugs. all software has always had bugs. airplane software has bugs. my honda CR-V was just patched for a transmission software bug. i was still able to drive it safely and airplanes don't fall out of the sky daily because of software bugs.
it was up to the defense to prove that the bugs in question return invalid results or increase the margin of error so much as to make the results useless
too bad, all the idiots who choose to drive after drinking more than they should deserve to go to jail. i'll drive a few hours after i have one drink. maybe one and a half. these idiots got drunk and drove a car
Re:On what planet? (Score:4, Insightful)
According to the article, cellphones in close proximity to the device can effect the accuracy of its results. Based on this ruling, defendants charged based on results from this equipment will not be able to challange the reliability of the results due to the proximity of a cell-phone, even though it is known to be an issue! How can you honestly not have a problem with that? Are you so blinded by your hatred of drunk drivers that you don't even believe people accused of it should have a right to a fair trial?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
'like fuckin' babies,'
and
'yes, has been for quite some time.'
Re: (Score:2)
How will these people sleep at night knowing they are punishing people who were innocent?
On top of a pile of money with many beautiful ladies?
Good plan to test twice, different equipment (Score:2)
When some potlicker tried to follow me up my driveway, at 2 AM, because "it was too dark to see my tail lights" he was tested at the scene and then tested again "downtown" Registering 0.17
Apprehending officers can also, and often do, use some video and audio at the scene. This guy, rocking back and forth on his feet, because he can hardly keep his balance, was convinced it was all the other driver's fault. Put that on video for the judge to see.
This sounds like... (Score:2)
...a ruling done to prevent a crap-storm of appeals and further contested DUI charges. I've seen such things happen before, where the ruling has less to do with evidence, and more to do with all the trouble that ruling on such evidence would cause. How much of a headache for law enforcement will it be if their DUI test proves flawed? It's a good thing to consider, even if it probably shouldn't affect the ruling...kind-of a "catch-.22."
so... (Score:2)
Let's suppose that, for the sake of argument, we know that someone exactly six foot created a crime.
You have six subjects. You get a measuring tape. One person measures exactly six foot.
He's convicted. We find out 2 years later that the measuring stick was two inches off.
According to this the person couldn't appeal based on the fact that the measuring stick was incorrect.
Both are tools. The only difference is one is an electronic, software based tool. Of course, this would mean that the judge didn't th
Re: (Score:2)
A somewhat flawed analogy because the tool is "usually right". It'd be like a measuring tape that, once in a while, stretches or shrinks by a few inches and there's no way to prove, two years later, exactly what height that person was at the time of the crime (maybe he's young and still growing?). Nonetheless, your point of it being a tool that may not always give 100% correct measurements is completely valid.
I just have one question (Score:2)
Is this an elected or appointed judge?
He ruled on the case as if he was elected.
Now what does a six-year hold on a DUI case do? (Score:2)
Now what does a six-year hold on a DUI case do?
How many cases will just be dropped to clear the load?
The Administrative License Suspension/Revocation maxes out at 1y for the 3rd time.
attorneys say to request a blood or urine test (Score:2)
attorneys say to request a blood or urine test and not a Breathalyzer test.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Breathalyzer-Test-For-DUI---Is-it-Your-Best-Bet?&id=3701454 [ezinearticles.com]
Not much of this stuff matters (Score:4, Insightful)
Once the cop decides he's going to arrest you for a DUI, its pretty irrelevant what data he does or doesn't collect or how its collected. Unless you're up for spending six to eight months of your life and about $15,000+ to put on a jury trial (and who knows what a jury is going to do), you're pretty much guilty on the spot. Its all well constructed legislation that was passed literally without opposition, as no politician is interested in sticking up for drunk drivers.
Further, in many states (like California) you're charged criminally AND as a separate administrative process by the department of motor vehicles. The DMV portion in CA simply requires that there be sufficient evidence of guilt and is independent of whatever happens in court on the criminal aspect. The DMV considers a police report with the arresting officers opinion that you were incapable of driving as sufficient evidence, without a need for a breathalyzer result. Further, some people are convicted of a dui with a blood alcohol level below .08, again because the arresting officer felt based on his observations that the driver was drunk.
The "cake" in this situation is the truth about the dividing line between social drinking and drunk driving. I think most people would agree that having a drink or two after work or with dinner is social drinking and should be legal if one should decide to drive home. However many people would be legally drunk on two drinks the size and composition of what many bars and restaurants pour.
Throw in the pressure to make DUI arrests, the ridiculous amount of fines and fees that fill wallets, the lack of any sort of sympathy or lobby effort to make things fair and reasonable, and then leave the 'social or drunk' decision to the cop...
So its advisable to stop worrying about the cockamamie systems they use to 'prove' whether you were too drunk to drive, those don't really matter much. Understand that there is no such thing as 'social drinking and driving', that by speeding a little or failing to stop completely at a stop sign can easily lead to a DUI arrest even if you haven't had that much to drink, and that arrest will be fairly devastating in terms of financial and personal impacts.
Got me out of jury duty (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Lame frosty.
Also, fuck this sociopathy of a "justice system". There is no consistency. They did not throw out these convictions only to save on paperwork. They should have been thrown out.
Also, if everyone exercised their right to a fair trial, then this bullshit criminal legal system would collapse. You'd see a lot fewer trumped up charges and minor offenses would be handled far more sanely. This "justice system" is like an abusive parent with a loud and obnoxious toddler.
Re:I for one... (Score:5, Insightful)
More likely...they didn't want to throw them out because of revenue loss.
They're not interested in making the roads safer, they're wanting to protect their revenue stream.
I'd be willing to bet, that if you took all the revenue from driving infractions, and pooled them, and maybe gave it all back to the citizens that did NOT incur any infractions...rather than give it to the cops, you'd see a huge drop in the vigor and ferocity of our 'safety' officials in setting up all these traps, and the system not caring much about how realistic, accurate and fair they are....
It is always a bad idea to allow those that can impose power over you, directly benefit monetarily from said actions.
Re:I for one... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that police should focus on areas where they can actually improve public safety, specifically, school and playground zones. It is very, very, very rare to see a police officer ticketing people speeding or passing in a playground zone. Dont get me started on automated systems (multinova, red light cams, speed on green).
Not to get TOO off-topic, but yes! (Score:5, Informative)
The traffic laws are a very sore spot for me as well. The types who go around with a "cops are heroes!" attitude get under my skin, when they actually fall for the propaganda about "we're only issuing tickets because we care about your safety".
To be honest, I'm a person who has gone my entire life with probably no more than 5 traffic tickets (including a state trooper who cited me for driving 65 in a 55MPH zone on an interstate, back when I was 18 -- and that may have been one of the only really "fair" ones I think I received). So it's not a case of me constantly getting tickets for speeding or reckless driving and having a chip on my shoulder.
I just see the entire thing as little more than tax collection / revenue generation, under a guise of performing a public service. Any time an excuse can be made to increase the financial penalties for a given violation, they jump on it, regardless of its actual effectiveness. (Just a few weeks ago, I made a road trip from St. Louis to the Chicago area, and I must have gone through at LEAST 10 different "road construction zones" with signs announcing fines would be doubled or tripled for exceeding the posted speed limits. In about 9 out of 10 of those zones, there was no actual construction taking place. In a few cases, I saw a pickup truck with one or two workers at a site, but they appeared to be there only to double-check on some details of work already completed, or ?? It was abundantly clear that there was no pressing reason to slow traffic down from the 65MPH limit to as little as 35MPH (creating big traffic backups) -- and in fact, most people elected to ignore the reduced speed demands because it was so clearly pointless. Still, a cop could easily decide to sit at any one of those work zones and issue BIG $ fines -- and drivers would have no recourse.
The whole "game" of cops trying to hide so they can catch a speeder is insulting, as well. If they're *really* doing all of this to "protect and serve" as their logo always claims -- wouldn't you think they'd want their police vehicle to be very clearly visible to all of the traffic? Certainly, you wouldn't use an *unmarked* car, where someone might not even be sure they were legitimately being pulled over!
Follow the Power (Score:5, Insightful)
More likely...they didn't want to throw them out because of revenue loss.
If it were that easy, it'd be mere corruption.
But consider that those with the libido dominandi seek money, sex, and power - in that order.
We all know that speed limit laws are often set capriciously, foolishly, and dangerously. But it's the law - and you'll obey.
It's like the marijuana debate. It doesn't matter that there's plenty of scientific evidence to show that alcohol is more dangerous, that legalizing marijuana reduces deaths and crime, etc. That's been known for at least decades. Yet the policies continue - why?
Sure, there's some financial emolument to certain players by having these laws, but there's way more benefit for the power structure. The point of these policies is to enforce the power structure. They dictate, you obey, logic and reason need not apply. Repeat until you understand who's in charge, what your position is, and how free you really are.
So then we get Supreme Court decisions like this one which takes a reasoned argument, throws it out, and that sets the new precedent. We must all obey these precedents, because that's what the system decided. We're taught that the system operates for our benefit, but primarily (literal sense) it operates for its own perpetuation. There's even SCOTUS precedent for decisions which basically say, "the defendant's claim has merit, but finding for him would threaten the system, so we find for the State."
"Follow the money" is good in business, but in politics, do that and also "follow the power".
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Cost/Benefit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Look, I said I don't approve, but at the same time I suspect that the majority of the convictions are correct. Those that are incorrect did have a chance to their day in court. That doesn't make it any better for those falsely convicted, but then again I never said it would
Re: (Score:3)
Look, I said I don't approve
Then get fucking outraged over this miscarriage of justice.
Re: (Score:3)
Complacent assholes like you are what's wrong with this world. You can get outraged over every miscarriage of justice, and you should. If more people did, we'd be able to do something about them. Authoritarian judges like this would fear for their jobs... at the least.
AC upstream was right. You deserve to be falsely convicted of a crime. I will enjoy not getting worked up about that injustice.
Probably guilty? (Score:5, Insightful)
As a minnesotan, I don't necessarily approve, but I would expect that the majority of those covicted with this equipment truely were drunk.
So your argument is that someone should be wrongly convicted because a bunch of other people probably were guilty? I pray you never become a judge.
Re: (Score:3)
As a minnesotan, I don't necessarily approve, but I would expect that the majority of those covicted with this equipment truely were drunk.
So your argument is that someone should be wrongly convicted because a bunch of other people probably were guilty? I pray you never become a judge.
... and that the wrongly convicted should stay that way, because clearing their names would just be too darn expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Probably guilty? (Score:5, Insightful)
what part of "I don't approve" didn't you understand?
The part where you never actually said that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect that the judge placed some emphasis on the cost of re-trying all of the cases that are based on this piece of equipment, in light of its obsolescence moving foreword
I suspect your thought process would be much easier to parse if you knew how to spell, but I digress...
In other words, actual justice is just too darn expensive? As far as piss-poor excuses go, that one ranks pretty fucking high.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It was recently discovered that Texas had executed an innocent man (the real person was found wandering the streets). I don't necessarily approve, but I would expect that the majority of those covicted truely were murders, and if a few innocent people are on deathrow... oh well. /end sarcasm
Re: (Score:2)
Their are degrees that your oversimplification ignore. Most first offense DUI convictions don't even end up in a suspended license, just a fine.
Re:Cost/Benefit (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever happened to the idea that it's better to let ten guilty men go free than to wrongly imprison one innocent man that this country's justice system was once based on?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Let's make this a drinking game. When someone posts an example of where Americans gave up freedoms for a bad reason we all drink. I'll start:
9/11.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually....that is the one and only time that I ever bother to try to follow the speed limits.
When I'm stone cold sober, I drive as fast as I like which is usually very fast. I only look at the speedometer when the radar detector goes off, or if on the highway, I know of a 'bear trap' from the CB radio. I don't drink and drive on the hwy, since I'm usually wanting to get somewhere fast, usually averaging 90-95mph most of the time. But around t
Re: (Score:2)
Yea sure. I've watched people who were obviously high do really stupid shit, like start crossing the intersection in the "going forward lane" then cutting over to turn left, nearly causing a 3-car accident because people in the turn lane were fucking turning.
If you are inebriated - BY ANYTHING - then stay the FUCK off the road.