<?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; Minnesota DWI Lawyer</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.kanslaw.com/blog/tag/minnesota-dwi-lawyer/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>Minnesota DWI Intoxilyzer Source Code Case: Federal Judge approves settlement.</title>
		<link>http://www.kanslaw.com/blog/minnesota-dwi-intoxilyzer-source-code-case-federal-judge-approves-settlement.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.kanslaw.com/blog/minnesota-dwi-intoxilyzer-source-code-case-federal-judge-approves-settlement.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2009 00:59:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Douglas Kans</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intoxilyzer Source Code]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Minnesota DWI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Minnesota DWI Lawyer]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kanslaw.com/blog/?p=130</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last Thursday, on July 16, U.S. District Court Judge Donovan Frank published his opinion approving a settlement between the State of Minnesota and CMI, the Kentucky-based company that manufactures the Intoxilyzer 5000EN &#8212; the machine used by the state to administer breath tests to measure the blood alcohol concentration of suspected impaired drivers. For over [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.kanslaw.com/blog/minnesota-dwi-intoxilyzer-source-code-case-federal-judge-approves-settlement.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>
		<item>
		<title>Minnesota Intoxilyzer Source Code Case: The State Has No Obligation to Disclose; Not in State&#8217;s Possession</title>
		<link>http://www.kanslaw.com/blog/another-minnesota-intoxilyzer-source-code-case-the-state-has-no-obligation-to-disclose-not-in-states-possession.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.kanslaw.com/blog/another-minnesota-intoxilyzer-source-code-case-the-state-has-no-obligation-to-disclose-not-in-states-possession.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2009 01:34:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Douglas Kans</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Blood Alcohol Testing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intoxilyzer Code]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intoxilyzer Source Code]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Minnesota DWI Lawyer]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kanslaw.com/blog/?p=16</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In an unpublished opinion by the Minnesota Court of Appeals on March 31, 2009 entitled State v. Kuklok,  Judge Bjorkman reversed the district court&#8217;s previous order compelling disclosure of the computer source code for the Intoxilyzer 5000EN (Minnesota&#8217;s breath alcohol testing device).  This was the machine utilized to test the blood alcohol concentration of the driver,  which revealed a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.kanslaw.com/blog/another-minnesota-intoxilyzer-source-code-case-the-state-has-no-obligation-to-disclose-not-in-states-possession.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
