<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Minnesota DWI DUI Lawyer, Minneapolis Criminal Defense Attorney &#187; Intoxilyzer</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.kanslaw.com/blog/tag/intoxilyzer/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.kanslaw.com/blog</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 06:44:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Minnesota Is Switching From Intoxilyzer 5000EN to New DataMaster DMT Breath Testing Machines</title>
		<link>http://www.kanslaw.com/blog/minnesota-is-switching-from-intoxilyzer-5000en-to-new-datamaster-dmt-breath-testing-machines.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.kanslaw.com/blog/minnesota-is-switching-from-intoxilyzer-5000en-to-new-datamaster-dmt-breath-testing-machines.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2011 22:20:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Douglas Kans</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[blood alcohol level]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Breath Testing Machine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Breathalyzer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Data Master DMT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intoxilyzer]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kanslaw.com/blog/?p=810</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Minneapolis DWI lawyers continue to challenge the reliability of breath test results provided by Intoxilyzer 5000EN. In previous blog posts, we reported that 4,000 Minnesota drunk driving cases are put on hold until the completion of the appeal regarding Intoxilyzer 5000EN which is the focus of the legal challenge. The state is phasing out 264 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.kanslaw.com/blog/minnesota-is-switching-from-intoxilyzer-5000en-to-new-datamaster-dmt-breath-testing-machines.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>4,000 Minnesota Drunk Driving Cases In Limbo – Full Explanation</title>
		<link>http://www.kanslaw.com/blog/4000-minnesota-drunk-driving-cases-put-on-hold-%e2%80%93-full-explanation.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.kanslaw.com/blog/4000-minnesota-drunk-driving-cases-put-on-hold-%e2%80%93-full-explanation.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2011 22:17:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Douglas Kans</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DataMaster DMT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[driving while impaired]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drunk driving]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intoxilyzer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Minnesota DWI Defense]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kanslaw.com/blog/?p=808</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As we touched on in the last blog post and reported on back in a March in a blog post entitled “Judge rules on limitations of Intoxilyzer 5000 after challenge from Minneapolis DWI Attorneys” the high court of the state granted the motion by a coalition of Minnesota defense attorneys requesting each DWI case in [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.kanslaw.com/blog/4000-minnesota-drunk-driving-cases-put-on-hold-%e2%80%93-full-explanation.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Enhanceability of a Minnesota DWI Conviction &#8211; A Case Study</title>
		<link>http://www.kanslaw.com/blog/st-paul-man-arrested-for-his-fifth-dwi.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.kanslaw.com/blog/st-paul-man-arrested-for-his-fifth-dwi.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2011 03:09:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Douglas Kans</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dakota county]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Felony DWI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intoxilyzer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Minneapolis DWI Lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Minnesota Criminal Lawyer]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kanslaw.com/blog/?p=699</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[  On this blog and within our websit we have covered what the enhanceability of a Minnesota DWI/DUI conviction means (Degrees of DWI Charges). In essence, if an individual is convicted or pleads guilty to a DWI in Minnesota, he or she is required to be advised by both the court and their attorney that a subsequent charge for DWI [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.kanslaw.com/blog/st-paul-man-arrested-for-his-fifth-dwi.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>State of Minnesota petitions MN Supreme Court to reconsider Intoxilyzer source code ruling</title>
		<link>http://www.kanslaw.com/blog/state-of-minnesota-petitions-mn-supreme-court-to-reconsider-intoxilyzer-source-code-ruling.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.kanslaw.com/blog/state-of-minnesota-petitions-mn-supreme-court-to-reconsider-intoxilyzer-source-code-ruling.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 May 2009 22:13:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DWI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intoxilyzer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[source code]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kanslaw.com/blog/?p=81</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.kanslaw.com/blog/state-of-minnesota-petitions-mn-supreme-court-to-reconsider-intoxilyzer-source-code-ruling.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Minnesota Supreme Court Tackles DWI Intoxilyzer Source Code Issue</title>
		<link>http://www.kanslaw.com/blog/minnesota-supreme-court-tackles-dwi-intoxilyzer-source-code-issue.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.kanslaw.com/blog/minnesota-supreme-court-tackles-dwi-intoxilyzer-source-code-issue.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 May 2009 05:30:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breath test]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intoxilyzer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Minnesoa DUI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Minnesota DWI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[source code]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kanslaw.com/blog/?p=71</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Minnesota Supreme Court in State vs. Underdahl, an 18 page ruling handed down on April 30th, 2009, affirmed one district court judge&#8217;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 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.kanslaw.com/blog/minnesota-supreme-court-tackles-dwi-intoxilyzer-source-code-issue.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Minnesota Intoxilyzer Breath Testing: A Different Issue</title>
		<link>http://www.kanslaw.com/blog/minnesota-intoxilyzer-breath-testing-a-different-issue.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.kanslaw.com/blog/minnesota-intoxilyzer-breath-testing-a-different-issue.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2009 16:44:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Douglas Kans</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Blood Alcohol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Breath Testing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intoxilyzer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Minnesota DUI Lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Minnesota DWI Lawyer]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kanslaw.com/blog/?p=27</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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&#8217;s guilt or innocence with regard to his or her &#8221;specific&#8221; Intoxilyzer result,  I felt it important to note that there are still potential [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.kanslaw.com/blog/minnesota-intoxilyzer-breath-testing-a-different-issue.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

