...except that wizard in Kentucky and he won’t tell!

State appeals court decision in breathalyzer case 
07/23/06
courtesy of sun-herald.com

(Florida) — The state is appealing a recent plaintiff’s victory in the controversial breathalyzer cases.

The theory of the Intoxilyzer 5000 (the breathalyzer used in Sarasota and Manatee counties) issue is that repairs or modifications to the instruments might have affected the results of DUI tests.

In May, a judge ruled that the plaintiffs are entitled to know how the Intoxilyzer works, according to Harrison. Put another way, the judge in effect told the machine’s manufacturer it had to turn over the software source code.

The manufacturer has steadfastly refused to turn over the source code, saying to do so would reveal “trade secrets.”

Harrison said earlier the manufacturer “blew off a subpoena” to show evidence why it should not show the Intoxilyzer software.

For three years, the breathalyzer battle has been one of fits and starts. It alternately explodes into a full-scale conflagration, then withers and sputters before erupting again.

Meanwhile, the outcome of more than 250 DUI cases hangs in the balance.

CMI, Inc. manufactures the Intoxilyzer 5000 and has steadfastly refused to produce the computer source code to the Intoxilyzer 5000.  The Intoxilyzer 5000 is basically a computer that estimate blood alcohol by analyzing breath with infrared light.  Nobody knows how it works because the manufacturer won’t release the source code or computer code that converts the reading of breath when it passes through infrared light.  So far its magic and State says that Defendants and there attorneys don’t need to now as long as the Georgia Bureau of Investigation Division of Forensic Services says it works and certifies the machine.  Who knows if they even know how it works.  The legislature requires that the Daubert legal standard (i.e, scientific methods must be subject to peer review) for scientific evidence applies to all civil cases ( or money cases) as in federal court but exempts criminal case ( or jail/personal liberty cases)  scientific evidence holding scientific evidence in criminal cases only to the Harper standard or a reasonable degree of scientific certainty.   You would think that freedom is more important than money but not in Georgia.  In Georgia money and most importantly the money of insurance companies have more rights than people to stay out of jail on junk science.  What do you think?   

---