Last time, the Federal government was working tirelessly to keep the homeland safe from the Communist predations of piracy. Today’s lesson demonstrates how quickly a simple, straightforward, just legal solution to drunk driving gave way to a widespread, systematic erosion of virtually every bedrock principle of Anglo-American jurisprudence, thanks to the tireless efforts of a well-meaning but zealously ideological group of For The Children crusaders, commonly known as MADD.

The recent release of some Breathalyzer source code (about which more later) drew my attention to the fact that DUI law at this point in our history is utterly devoid of any of the Constitutional protections upon which the country was founded. For a detailed analysis, read this lecture about the DUI exception to the Constitution, on the well-written DUI blog. A sampling of the rights which are abridged, at the urging of MADD and with the assistance of the Supreme Court, includes:

• Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure, in the form of DUI roadblocks
• counsel
• Miranda notice
• Suppression of compelled evidence
• Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination
• Access to evidence against you for expert analysis and refutation
• Prevention of destruction of exculpatory evidence
• Trial by jury

Not to mention the astonishingly unreliable nature of the Breathalyzer devices. Which brings me to the surprising fact that the release of this Breathalyzer code is news. You see, as a naive student of Anglo-American jurisprudence, I just assumed that, when one is charged with criminal DUI based on the analysis of a machine, one is entitled to analyze and challenge that evidence, which would in this case require access to the software that drives the Breathalyzer.

Apparently, this in fact does not go without saying, and until recently no court in the land had compelled manufacturers to make their source code and design details available to defendants. In other words, there was a presumption of guilt on the basis of the output of a Breathalyzer.

Now that the source code is out, it becomes clear just how bogus that presumption is. As someone who’s worked on embedded systems teams before, it comes as absolutely no surprise to me be that the Breathalyzer code is crufty, ad-hoc, lacking in basic error handling, and generally unreliable. To do otherwise is expensive and time-consuming, and absent a market or regulatory imperative is not cost-effective.

So, here we have an example of a simple law (“Don’t drive while under the influence of alchol”) with a sensible purpose (prevent death and injury—often to innocents—due to intoxicated drivers), combined with well-intended and zealous lobbying on the part of MADD, presumably for the greater social good (and, of course, The Children), resulting in a systematic, wholesale, egregious violation of virtually every pillar of Anglo-American jurisprudence. In a country where those accused of rape, murder, kidnapping, and grand theft still (usually) enjoy the legal protections enshrined in our Constitution, virtually anyone suspected of DUI (by which is now meant ‘having breath with which the Breathalyzer does not agree’) is treated to a legal system worthy of a Third World dictator.

Let this be a lesson to you: never compromise the basic rights and freedoms guaranteed to every one by our Constitution. Not for The Children, not for the War on Drugs, not for the War on Terror, not for restoring faith in the political process, not for the public good, not even for the most vile and evil among us. However well-intentioned or narrowly constrained the exception, it must be vigorously and tirelessly resisted, without mercy or hesitation.

The Founders understood this, but the twentieth century has abandoned it. We won’t be given too many more changes to reclaim our rights and freedoms before they’re gone, to be replaced by the chains setting lightly upon our backs, just as Sam Adams warned.