Speed Trap Hunter Forum: Best Radar Detectors, Laser Jammers, Laser Detectors, Speed Cameras Forum  

Go Back   Speed Trap Hunter Forum: Best Radar Detectors, Laser Jammers, Laser Detectors, Speed Cameras Forum > Speed Trap & Traffic Enforcement > Economics & Politics
Radar Detectors Forum Logon:

Economics & Politics Discussion of the economic and political market driving factors of automated enforcement technology.

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 2009-05-04
NMA Reporter NMA Reporter is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: 2008 Feb
Posts: 125
NMA Reporter is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Minnesota Supreme Court Orders Access to Breathalyzer Source Code

Article: Minnesota Supreme Court Orders Access to Breathalyzer Source Code

Minnesota Supreme CourtThe Minnesota Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a lower court's decision to require production of the source code used by breath testing machines. This code is responsible for calculating the estimate of blood alcohol content which frequently is the only relevant piece of evidence in drunk driving (DUI) cases. 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.

State officials 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 supreme court found fault with the reasoning of the appeals court and split the difference. It upheld Brunner's request for the code and turned down Underdahl's. In a partial dissent, Justices Alan C. Page and Paul Anderson explained the source code's importance while arguing that Underdahl's case was identical to Brunner's.

"In this case, guilt or innocence depends on Underdahl's blood alcohol content," the dissent stated. "His blood alcohol content is assessed by the Intoxilyzer 5000EN. The source code of the Intoxilyzer 5000EN is the programming instruction used by the machine to assess blood alcohol content. The operation of the source code determines the reliability of the Intoxilyzer 5000EN's blood alcohol content readings. The reliability of the Intoxilyzer 5000EN is a question that the jury will have to decide before determining Underdahl's guilt or innocence. Thus, I conclude that the source code relates to Underdahl's guilt or innocence and that, under Rule 9.01, subd. 2(3), its disclosure is required."

The majority, 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. Both of the DUI court cases can now move forward.

Other states have addressed the issue of the reliability of breath testing machines. In 2005, a lower court in Florida ordered the production of breathalyzer source code. Last year, the New Jersey Supreme Court reinstated breathalyzer use even though an examination of the source code revealed shoddy programming practices.

A copy of the case is available in a 150k PDF file at the source link below. Source
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
California Supreme Court Admits, Ignores Breathalyzer Flaws NMA Reporter Economics & Politics 0 2009-07-15 15:17
California Supreme Court: Breathalyzer Results Can Be Challenged NMA Reporter NMA Articles 0 2009-07-14 21:16
California Supreme Court to Review Red Light Cameras NMA Reporter Economics & Politics 0 2008-09-28 11:30
Iowa Supreme Court Saves Photo Ticketing Program NMA Reporter Economics & Politics 0 2008-08-29 21:42
Trial By Declaration: Fight A Traffic Ticket Without Going To Court NMA Reporter NMA Articles 0 2008-05-17 19:37

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:40.

©2019 SpeedTrapHunter