The ruling of the Superior Court to give Arizona DUI lawyers complete access to the breath-testing equipment software was overturned by the Court of Appeals. The panel said that no evidence was found to support lower court judge’s claim that prosecutors have better access to it than defense attorneys.

The software code called Intoxilyzer 8000 was placed under repeated attack from defense lawyers handling DUI cases. They say that this code will enable them to verify the reliability and accuracy of the equipment independently. They argued that they have the right legally and constitutionally to challenge their accusers.

According to Intoxilyer 8000 manufacturer, their code is considered a trade secret. But reports say that this equipment was banned in Tennessee after it failed to meet the testing for accuracy. In fact, court battles have already sparked in New Jersey, Massachusetts, Louisiana, Florida and Minnesota. Issues that always come up include unauthorized changes to software and equipment approved by the state as well as code access.

Back in Arizona Court ruling, they clarified that prosecutors don’t really have an advantage over criminal defense DUI attorneys. However, there’s still an issue on the “substantial need” for code access, and the state prosecutors have already predicted that any decision of the Superior Court judge will ultimately be brought to the Court of Appeals.

Being a programmer myself, I would not surrender my source code to anyone. The hardware inside that the software is sampling is more likely to cause errors. Hardware gets old, ozidation, blockages, etc. Once code works, it works.

It would seem logical that if it reliably measures blood-alcohol in some controlled tests, it should just remain a black box to the users. Hardware and software.

I find this odd.

In a case where say results from an autopsy are used in court the methodology of the autopsy along with the labs past record and other factors are fair game for the defense.

Here in Michigan we recently saw a bunch of convictions throw out because of sloppy and perhaps corrupt lab procedures.

Programmers write bad code right? Even the most intelligent ones make errors at times right? What if these errors lead to false positives?

We have seen not just errors leading to DUI convictions but outright fraud by police who seek to beef up their conviction records occurring all over the country. That alone seems reason to me to make this information available to the defense.

So, what if the issue was not DUI but voter fraud? In the code lays the evidence. Should it be unavailable to both sides?

I have never seen a perfect program or perfect piece of code. Being that this is a black box, the general public has no knowledge of how it works or what it's potential flaws are. I believe the lawyers are suggesting that the device used in trial is a witness that defendants are not given an opportunity to cross-examine. Any kind of lab work or forensic exam can be replicated or it's technician can be scrutinized, they are not automated by a device whose techniques can be replicated or scrutinized.

if the defense cant have it then neither should the state

it should be deemed inadmissible