When your accuser is a machine...

you should still have the right to face it. Or in this DUI case, to examine the source code. From ArsTechnica:

One of the common criticisms (which is also made of voting machines) of breath devices is that the "state-certified" models are updated even after they are certified. The companies that manufacture the machines make tweaks, bug fixes, and even add new features, but the machines are not generally recertified after every single source code change. This means that any given machine could potentially be running non-certified code, code which may or may not have errors.

Are jurors/judges aware of the standard deviation of these devices? It would be a victory for liberty if these tools were drowned out of use by cost prohibitive requests for discovery and the constant need for recertification.