• Public

  • Public
  • Network
  • Groups
  • Featured
  • Popular
  • People

A page from the opinion that reads: The Commonwealth also argues that because the FLH algorithm uses as its inputs location data sources generally regarded as reliable (such as GPS, CSLI, and Wi-Fi location data), the FLH data output by the algorithm consequently is also generally regarded as reliable. This argument misunderstands the Commonwealth's burden. "[W]hen proposed expert testimony uses a new theory, or new methodology to apply an accepted theory, the proponent must establish its reliability using a Daubert-Lanigan analysis." Davis, 487 Mass. at 455. See Commonwealth v. Camblin, 471 Mass. 639, 650 (2015), S.C., 478 Mass. 469 (2017) (although breathalyzer technology is generally accepted as reliable, where new type of breath test machine had not previously been tested and no court had considered the reliability of its source code, "the judge should have held a hearing to determine whether the source code and other challenged features . . . functioned in a manner that reliably produced accurate breath test results"). And I highlighted this portion: "In other words, even if the inputs used by the FLH algorithm are generally deemed reliable, the FLH data outputs are not ipso facto reliable, especially where there is not scientific literature or adequate testing to support reliability."