<?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>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 02:13:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
		<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>
