Forgive me for not finding the original thread please.

I did want to up-date you all on this. I know there are legal challenges to breathalyzer testing in a variety of states. This news is from New Jersey where they found a startling 19,400 potential errors in the code. I am aware there are several manufacturers of these types of devices and this speaks to just one.

I believe it is essential to justice that the accused in any trial be allowed full access to all information used in court including the methodology used to determine what the state considers "facts"

I hope the New Jersey finds will lead other states to examine their equipment and procedures.

I include here only the introduction. A full and more detailed version of this report can be found at http://www.dwi.com/new-jersey/state-v-chun/?yeah.

State v. Chun

Base One Findings


SUMMARY OF THE SOFTWARE HOUSE FINDINGS
FOR THE
SOURCE CODE OF THE
DRAEGER ALCOTEST 7110 MKIII-C


Code Review

After two years of attempting to get the computer based source code for the Alcotest 7110 MKIII-C, defense counsel in State v. Chun were successful in obtaining the code, and had it analyzed by Base One Technologies, Inc.

By making itself a party to the litigation after the oral arguments in April, Draeger subjected itself to the Supreme Court's directive that Draeger ultimately provide the source code to the defendants' software analysis house, Base One.

Despite Draeger's protestations that the code was proprietary, Base One found that the code consists mostly of general algorithms arranged in a manner to implement the breath testing sequence. "That is, the code is not really unique or proprietary."

In a report released August 28, 2007, Base One determined:

As a matter of public safety, the Alcotest should be suspended from use until the software has been reviewed against an acceptable set of software development standards, and recoded and tested if necessary. An incorrect breath test could lead to accidents and possible loss of life, because the device might not detect a person who is under the influence, and that person would be allowed to drive. The possibility also exists that a person not under the influence could be wrongly accused and/or convicted.

Draeger reviewed the code, as well, through its software house, SysTest Labs, which agreed with Base One, that the patchwork code that makes up the 7110 is not written well, nor is it written to any defined coding standard. SysTest said, "The Alcotest NJ3.11 source code appears to have evolved over numerous transitions and versioning, which is responsible for cyclomatic complexity."

The best thing SysTest said about the machine was, "The translation from German to English of the comments within the major components shows the logical intent of the programmers to produce reliable and valid test results. SysTest was unable to find any evidence of any intention to mis-direct or re-direct the test results or report anything other than valid results."

SysTest only looked for "mal-ware", not for functioning of the code.

Base One, however, did an extensive evaluation, finding 19,400 potential errors in the code.

Oh that is just silly... gee wizz

Never blow... just suck it up and go...