siliconvalleysleuth.com— A group of more than 150 defendants accused of driving under the influence of alcohol are asking a judge to give them the source code of the device that police used to prove their guilt.
Oct 20, 2005View in Crawl 4
"Also, if the breathalyser is used to establish probable cause, but the accuracy of the breathalyser is not credibly established, then how can that really be considered "probable cause"?"Well, no actually. PC is just used to establish that the police had enough reason to believe that the person was offending to arrest. A reasonable belief that the breathalyser is functioning correctly is all they need. Even if it turns out the device doesn't function as promised, it has no bearing on this matter since the POs still had a reasonable belief, which Courts have said does not create a "fruit from poisoned tree" problem. At best, it __might__ mean they couldn't use the tests as an offer of proof... but, as I said, no PO would use the test as the sole means of proof, anyway. PC isn't used to convict--only search. "What are you, dense? Happens in every state in the country. In most states, just refusing to take a breathalyser test is an automatic arrest and sometimes suspension of your drivers license."Well, that's not true, actually. If you are privy to information to that end, I'd like to see it. I have to say, "Otto," that your belligerent tone here is rather annoying. Do you have legal training? I do. Some other people here certainly do, and your insults only make your incorrect claims even less palatable.
meangene: "Face it loser, you were driving drunk. Suck it up and pay your new, higher insurance rates. While I think they are making an interesting point, I think people are continually trying to find different ways to NOT take responsibility for their actions."innocent until proven guilty ftw?
I completely agree. Someone that not so much blatantly breaks the law (as most laws mean little to me), but rather does so in a manner that endangers those around him- or herself should be taken out and beaten with a very heavy stick.That being said, these machines, regardless of how important in prosecuting the cases, are a part of the process. Ensuring the quality and accuracy of them isn't going to help the guilty. It's going to help protect the innocent and ensure those deserving of punishment don't get off scott free. It's only a benefit to the justice system to ensure their tools are properly programmed, calibrated, and used. It's one thing we're actually able to do to help maintain the 'purity' of the process. We've little power against corruption.
<a class="user" href="http://tampatrib.com/floridametronews/MGBUBJ5QK9E.html">http://tampatrib.com/floridametronews/MGBUBJ5QK9E.html</a>"Seminole judges have been following the lead of county Judge Donald Marblestone, who in January ruled that although the information may be a trade secret and controlled by a private contractor, defendants are entitled to it.``Florida cannot contract away the statutory rights of its citizens,'' the judge wrote.Judges in other counties have said the opposite: The state cannot turn over something it does not possess, and the manufacturer should not have to turn over trade secrets."
> Kirks defence is that a programmed > machine cannot dictate a living humans> guilt or innocence.Ah, yes... the quaint innocence of the '70s...fscking hippies
> "Also, if the breathalyser is used to > establish probable cause, but the > accuracy of the breathalyser is not > credibly established, then how can that> really be considered "probable cause"?"Extend this concept to the search for meth labs.I'm pretty sure that I can build a device that will allow your kitchen garbage to provide the probable cause to allow the police to kick your door in. Is that the kind of world you want to live in? Because if it is, I can build it and I will if I am paid enough make it happen.
I guess in a way im missing the point, but these people were first spotted by police behind the wheel and doing something that cought the eye of the cops to get pulled over and tested in the first place. Its just a technicality to get off. They should have been responsable in the first place and not been behind the wheel.
drahknonOct 20, 2005
"Also, if the breathalyser is used to establish probable cause, but the accuracy of the breathalyser is not credibly established, then how can that really be considered "probable cause"?"Well, no actually. PC is just used to establish that the police had enough reason to believe that the person was offending to arrest. A reasonable belief that the breathalyser is functioning correctly is all they need. Even if it turns out the device doesn't function as promised, it has no bearing on this matter since the POs still had a reasonable belief, which Courts have said does not create a "fruit from poisoned tree" problem. At best, it __might__ mean they couldn't use the tests as an offer of proof... but, as I said, no PO would use the test as the sole means of proof, anyway. PC isn't used to convict--only search. "What are you, dense? Happens in every state in the country. In most states, just refusing to take a breathalyser test is an automatic arrest and sometimes suspension of your drivers license."Well, that's not true, actually. If you are privy to information to that end, I'd like to see it. I have to say, "Otto," that your belligerent tone here is rather annoying. Do you have legal training? I do. Some other people here certainly do, and your insults only make your incorrect claims even less palatable.
chimichangaOct 20, 2005
meangene: "Face it loser, you were driving drunk. Suck it up and pay your new, higher insurance rates. While I think they are making an interesting point, I think people are continually trying to find different ways to NOT take responsibility for their actions."innocent until proven guilty ftw?
nocreOct 20, 2005
I completely agree. Someone that not so much blatantly breaks the law (as most laws mean little to me), but rather does so in a manner that endangers those around him- or herself should be taken out and beaten with a very heavy stick.That being said, these machines, regardless of how important in prosecuting the cases, are a part of the process. Ensuring the quality and accuracy of them isn't going to help the guilty. It's going to help protect the innocent and ensure those deserving of punishment don't get off scott free. It's only a benefit to the justice system to ensure their tools are properly programmed, calibrated, and used. It's one thing we're actually able to do to help maintain the 'purity' of the process. We've little power against corruption.
mattb5Oct 21, 2005
<a class="user" href="http://tampatrib.com/floridametronews/MGBUBJ5QK9E.html">http://tampatrib.com/floridametronews/MGBUBJ5QK9E.html</a>"Seminole judges have been following the lead of county Judge Donald Marblestone, who in January ruled that although the information may be a trade secret and controlled by a private contractor, defendants are entitled to it.``Florida cannot contract away the statutory rights of its citizens,'' the judge wrote.Judges in other counties have said the opposite: The state cannot turn over something it does not possess, and the manufacturer should not have to turn over trade secrets."
Closed AccountOct 21, 2005
> Kirks defence is that a programmed > machine cannot dictate a living humans> guilt or innocence.Ah, yes... the quaint innocence of the '70s...fscking hippies
Closed AccountOct 21, 2005
> "Also, if the breathalyser is used to > establish probable cause, but the > accuracy of the breathalyser is not > credibly established, then how can that> really be considered "probable cause"?"Extend this concept to the search for meth labs.I'm pretty sure that I can build a device that will allow your kitchen garbage to provide the probable cause to allow the police to kick your door in. Is that the kind of world you want to live in? Because if it is, I can build it and I will if I am paid enough make it happen.
kyle133Oct 21, 2005
Have a look at this...<a class="user" href="http://www.milliondollarhero.com">http://www.milliondollarhero.com</a>
modifiyOct 21, 2005
I guess in a way im missing the point, but these people were first spotted by police behind the wheel and doing something that cought the eye of the cops to get pulled over and tested in the first place. Its just a technicality to get off. They should have been responsable in the first place and not been behind the wheel.