FREE Consumer Guide
The Shocking Truth About Reckless
Driving/Speeding in Virginia

Controversial FREE Consumer Guide from Former Prosecutor Bob Battle reveals the TRUTH About Reckless Driving/Speeding in Virginia!

This free Consumer Guide is a must read, especially for out-of-state or out-of-area motorists not familiar with the way area courts along I-95, I-85 and I-64 handle traffic cases.

Questions answered include "Should I Hire an Attorney?" and "What Are My Options?" The book also arms you with the 10 Questions you must ask to have the best chance of winning your case.

Click Here for INSTANT delivery.

Battle Blog

DUI Defense for Drivers in Virginia

view all

Library

DUI Defense for Drivers in Virginia

view all

Adjust font size:

A A A

Battle DUI Law Blog

DUI Defense for Drivers in Virginia

5/6/2009
Bob Battle
Comments (0)

Minnesota Supreme Court Upholds Order to reveal Intoxilyzer 5000 Source Code

The Minnesota Supreme Court last Thursday upheld a lower court's decision to require production of the source code used by breath testing machines. This "source code" is the computer software which converts a small sample of breath into a calculation of the estimate of blood alcohol content in the person's system. When Dale Lee Underdahl and Timothy Arlen Brunner were both charged with DUI in separate cases in 2006 and 2007, they sought access to the source code for the Intoxilyzer 5000EN. Virginia recently replaced the last of the Intoxilyzer 5000 models with a different machine.

State officials in Minnesota resisted the defendants' requests, claiming the software controlling the device was not relevant and, in any case, it was private information under the sole control of the machine's manufacturer, CMI Inc. CMI claimed the information was a "trade secret" and refused a district court order to produce the code. This led to the prospect that the charges against Underdahl and Brunner would be dismissed for lack of evidence, so before this could happen, the state asked the court of appeals to strike down both discovery requests. The appeals court agreed with the state.

The majority of the MN Supreme Court, however, turned down Underdahl's request simply because he failed to make a sufficient argument in the court's eyes to establish the relevance of the breath testing machine's underlying software. To require disclosure, the court ruled that the defense must make an argument to establish relevance. Because Brunner submitted nine exhibits to bolster his claim, the high court ruled that the district court court judge had the discretion to mandate its disclosure. Brunner offered evidence of faulty source code procedures uncovered in New Jersey and problems with voting booths using similar technology. Both of the DUI court cases can now move forward.

Click the link to read the full Minnesota Supreme Court Source Code Ruling.

Labels:

There are no comments.

Contact Us

Request Free Guide Now

FREE Consumer Guide
How to Choose a DUI
Lawyer in Virginia

Controversial FREE Consumer Guide from Former Prosecutor Bob Battle reveals the TRUTH about Lawyer Website Hype & B.S.!

If you have a pending DUI, this is the book that gives you the critical information you need to choose the right lawyer - we GUARANTEE this book will not waste your time.

Questions you must ask of any lawyer

How to Avoid hiring a lawyer who is "Asleep at the Wheel" of your DUI Case

20 Mistakes lawyers make that Lose WINNABLE cases for their clients

Click Here for INSTANT delivery.

DISCLAIMER: THE RESULTS OF SPECIFIC CASES REPORTED ARE NOT MEANT TO BE A PREDICTION OR GUARANTEE OF ANY OTHER CASE. EACH CASE CONSISTS OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO THAT CASE.