Posts Tagged ‘Intoxilyzer’

State of Minnesota petitions MN Supreme Court to reconsider Intoxilyzer source code ruling

Saturday, May 9th, 2009

In a petition signed May 5th, 2009,  the State of Minnesota has requested the Minnesota Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling in State vs. Underdahl.  Specifically, the state has requested that the Court reverse its earlier finding that the State of Minnesota has possession of the source code.

In its petition, the state argues that they are not currently in possession of the source code and are unable to produce it, but are still currently involved in federal litigation with CMI of Kentucky, Inc. (CMI), the company owning the source code,  in an effort to obtain the source code for defendants or petitioners, if ordered to do so by a district court.

One proposal put forth by the State of Minnesota,in its petition, s that the Minnesota Supreme Court delay its decision on this issue until the federal litigation involving CMI has been resolved.    Stay tuned…

Minnesota Supreme Court Tackles DWI Intoxilyzer Source Code Issue

Saturday, May 2nd, 2009

The Minnesota Supreme Court in State vs. Underdahl, an 18 page ruling handed down on April 30th, 2009, affirmed one district court judge’s order that the source code for the Minnesota Intoxilyzer 5000EN breath testing machine be disclosed by the State of Minnesota in a Minnesota DWI prosecution case, but also ruled that the district court abused its discretion in ordering the State to disclose the source code in a separate Minnesota DUI prosecution case. 

In the first case, the Minnesota Supreme Court found that the defense made a sufficient showing that the source code may relate to the defendant’s guilt or innocence in his Minnesota DWI or DUI case, as opposed to the second case where the Court found the defendant did not make such a showing. 

Although the Court ruled that the State does have the source code in its possession, it made clear that it’s still within the district court’s broad discretion whether to grant a defendant’s motion requesting disclosure of the source code in a MN DUI case.  It further found that the district court, in the first case, did not abuse this discretion in ordering production of the source code, where as the district court in the second DWI case did abuse its discretion by ordering production of the source code where the defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence.

Until now, the vast majority of district court judges in Minnesota have denied defense motions requesting production of the source code in DWI cases. The question now becomes as to what affect this decision will have on these same judges. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that district judges still have broad discretion whether to grant or deny similar motions by Minnesota Criminal Lawyers on behalf of DWI defendants.

 At the very least, perhaps the DWI defendant is now given a blue print as to what may be required to make a sufficient showing to obtain an order requiring production of the Minnesota Intoxilyzer 5000EN source code.  Also, with this ruling, there seems little doubt that the flood gates may now be open for source code demands.  I think the question still remains as to what will be the result of such demands, based on this Minnesota Supreme Court decision.

Minnesota Intoxilyzer Breath Testing: A Different Issue

Thursday, April 9th, 2009

After Posting below about another Minnesota DWI Source Code Case where the Court has, yet again, rejected ordering disclosure of the source code because there has been no showing that it is relevant to the driver’s guilt or innocence with regard to his or her ”specific” Intoxilyzer result,  I felt it important to note that there are still potential issues a Minnesota DUI Lawyer should be aware of when looking at a particular driver’s specific Intoxilyzer result.

In a recent Hennepin County District Court case, in which I represented the defendant, I successfully argued that, with regard to my client’s specific Minnesota Intoxilyzer Breath Test Result, the machine was unreliable as to whether his blood alcohol concentration was a .o8 or more.

In this case, the simulated breath solution, with a known value, was .O79.  The State argued that the simulator solution was within the acceptable limits and was therefore a reliable result.  However, upon my cross-examination,  the officer  reported the simulator solution was read by the Intoxilyzer machine as .081 and .080.  Therefore, the machine appeared to be inflating the results by .01 to .02.  Generally, this would not be an issue and harmless, however, my client’s second breath sample was exactly .08 with a replicate of .081.  The final reported value was .08g/210L.

The Court ruled in our favor and found my client’s specific Intoxilyzer result of .o8 untrustworthy and questionable and therefore rescinded/dismissed the driver’s license revocation.  The Court stated that the State of Minnesota/Commissioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that my client’s alcohol concentration was over the legal limit.  Specifically, the Court ruled the Intoxilyzer, in this specific instance, was reading or testing it’s simulator solution at least .002 higher than the simulator solution’s known value of .079.  Again, it’s important to note, my client’s test result was exactly a .08.

Certainly, this particular fact scenario is rare in most .08 cases, but it does underscore the notion that there are still genuine legal arguments and issues with regard to Minnesota Intoxilyzer Breath Testing and the skilled Minnesota DWI Lawyer needs to be aware of them.


Home | Firm Overview | Practice Areas | Legal Resources | Previous Cases | Testimonials | Contact Us

Minnesota DUI Attorney / Minneapolis DWI Attorney Firm / Contact Us / Testimonials / Minnesota Criminal Lawyer / DWI & DUI Cases
Legal Resources / Site Map / Criminal Attorney / Case Law Update / DWI Minnesota / Press Releases / The Hidden Costs of DUI

Kans Law - Leading Criminal Attorney Minnesota - Minnesota DWI attorney & DUI Lawyer concentrating in Criminal Defense cases.
Recognized as a leader in Minneapolis DWI & DUI defense The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation. You may reproduce materials available at this site for your own personal use and for
non-commercial distribution. All copies must include the above copyright notice.

Copyright 2009 © Kans Law Firm, LLC | Twin Cities Web Design | Law Firm Web Design | Website Design Minneapolis