The LAW & LAWYERS Blog

The battle over the source code for the Intoxilyzer 5000 raged on for months in Florida, and quickly spread to other states using the breathalyzer device.  Hundreds of cases were stalled or dismissed while courts in different jurisdictions reached conflicting conclusions about the defendant’s right to obtain the breathalyzer machine’s source code, and the corporation that developed the Intoxilyzer made it clear that the source code would not be divulged regardless of the outcome.  In Florida, the state legislature stepped in to alter the state’s DUI statute to specifically state that the defendant had no right to review the source code.

Now, more than two years later, a Tucson judge has thrownTucson judge has thrown out breath test results in another 69 cases–bringing the recent total in Arizona to more than 300.  This time, the machine in question is the Intoxilyzer 8000, the new and improved product that manufacturers and prosecutors alike hoped would put an end to the struggle by eliminating alleged flaws in the system.  But the new breathalyzer seems to come with its own set of inconsistencies and possibilities for error.

While the company’s reluctance to divulge its trade secrets in public courtrooms across the country is understandable and prosecutors claim that their hands are tied by that refusal, the bottom line remains what it was three years ago when defense attorneys first began to gain momentum with these requests and always will be:  a defendant is entitled to examine the evidence against him, and if the evidence isn’t available for examination, it shouldn’t be introduced.  Fortunately, many judges have that bottom line clearly in view.

This entry was posted on Sunday, November 30th, 2008 at 9:24 pm and is filed under DUI Law, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.