Federal Judge to Minnesota Drivers: For Justice Go to Kentucky

In a highly anticipated decision, U.S. District Court Judge Donovan Frank today approved the settlement between the State of Minnesota and CMI concerning the source code to the Intoxilyzer 500o. This sweetheart deal forces Minnesota drivers to travel to CMI headquarters in Owensboro, Kentucky in order to meaningfully analyze the machine accusing them of a crime. Not only that, but the analysis must be done under the watchful eye of CMI representatives who will undoubtedly attempt to affect the results and corresponding report! Minnesota Judges are not bound by this decision, however, and we have hope that some may see this settlement as the scam that it is.

Federal Court to Decide on Source Code Issue Within 30 Days

On Friday, June 19, a hearing was held in Federal Court to determine whether the Court will accept the tentative settlement between CMI (the maker of the Intoxilyzer 5000EN) and the State of Minnesota. The settlement calls for CMI to provide a copy of the source code in electronic form for inspection at its offices in Owensboro, Kentucky. Paper copies (useless) will be available to litigants in Minnesota. No electronic copies of the source code will be available in Minnesota. At the hearing, attorneys representing Minnesota drivers argued that this settlement was inadequate since it required Minnesota drivers to travel to Kentucky to have the source code analyzed. After the hearing, U.S. Federal District Court Judge Donovan Frank informed the parties that he would rule as to whether to accept the proposed settlement within 30 days. Hopefully Judge Frank will see this settlement for what it is:  a smokescreen clearly designed to place undue burdens on Minnesota drivers who have been given access to the source code by Minnesota courts.

Court of Appeals Again Reverses Trial Court; Federal Court Agreement?

Today in State v. Crane, the Court of Appeals finally put to rest the state’s argument that it does not have possession and control over the source code to the Intoxilyzer 5000 breath testing machine. The court held that the Supreme Court’s rulings in Brunner and Underdahl II are the final word on the subject and any trial court judge who disagrees will be reversed.

The emphasis of the source code battle now shifts to federal court and the State of Minnesota’s lawsuit against the manufacturer of the Intoxilyzer 5000, CMI of Kentucky. Yesterday, it was announced that the two parties have reached a settlement in which the source code would be provided to drivers in some form or another. As in most anything, though, the devil is in the details. Early reports indicate that the code may only be examined in Owensboro, Kentucky and even there only a portion of the code will be provided. Yet again, it seems as though the State is more interested in keeping the source code hidden in the hills of Kentucky than giving drivers a meaningful opportunity to inspect and anylize a machine that is used to put people in prison. It may be a sign of the inadequacy of the settlement that the attorneys representing Minnesota drivers were not present during the settlement negotiations. The agreement must still be approved by Federal District Court Judge Donovan Frank.

Minnesota Court of Appeals Orders District Court to Grant Source Code Motion

In the first ever ruling of its kind in Minnesota, the Court of Appeals today in Bowen v. Commissioner of Public Safety overturned a trial court’s order denying production of the source code. This case now stands for the proposition that drivers must make only a limited showing in order to meet the “relevance” requirement under the rules of discovery. In essence, Bowen will preclude the government from arguing that the source code is not relevant to the guilt or innocence of drivers who are being accused by the Intoxilyzer 5000. Since the ruling reverses a trial court’s order, it should go a long way to pursuade the remaining trial court judges that if they don’t grant production of the source code, they themselves face the prospect of being reversed. It looks as though the days in which Minnesota drivers face a trial by a mysterious machine may be quickly coming to an end.

Minnesota Supreme Court: Source Code Is Discoverable

In a long awaited opinion, the Supreme Court of Minnesota today in State v. Brunner ruled that the source code used to run the Intoxilyzer 5000 breath testing machine is in the possession of the State of Minnesota and is discoverable. This ruling reverses several recent Court of Appeals decisions which have held that drivers have no access to the source code and no right to determine whether or not the Intoxylizer 5000 works as well as the state claims. Essentially, the Supreme Court today recognized that drivers have a fundamental right to examine the evidence used against them in court. This is a fantastic ruling, yet the fundamental question remains: what is the manufacturer of the Intoxilyzer trying to hide?

Minnesota Court of Appeals Throws Out Conviction Because Ramsey County Attorney Plays Race Card

Yesterday, in State v. Mitchell, the Minnesota Court of Appeals threw out a drug related conviction due to prosecutorial misconduct by the Ramsey County Attorney’s Office. Specifically, the Court found that the injection of race into a trial by the prosecution was grounds for a new trial when the case had nothing at all to do with race. Congratulations to the Court of Appeals for holding prosecutors accountable for shady tactics.

Additionally, the court rebuked the judge in the case for explicitly punishing the defendant for exercising his right to a trial. While we know that this sort of things happens frequently, its nice to see the court sending a strong message to judges that this is not acceptable and will not be tolerated.

Minnesota House of Representatives Requires Source Code Furnished To Defendants

Yesterday, the Minnesota House of Representatives passed the omnibus public safety bill which deals with a variety of criminal law related matters. Of special note to us is the sudden appearance of the “source code” in the bill in the form of amendment HDA-069. The amendment requires that when the state purchases breath testing devices in the future, the manufacturer must make the source code available to defendants in a convenient form. To the surprise of many, the amendment passed the house and is now inculded in the final bill! In essence, the House of Representatives is now on record as saying that defendants should have the right to inspect the source code in order to make sure the testing devices are working properly. If the House of Representatives can see that examinination of the source code is important to protect the liberty of the citizens of Minnesota, hopefully more judges will be willing to stand up to the state and order its production.

U.S. Supreme Court: The Fourth Amendment Lives!

Today the United States Supereme Court struck a blow for liberty and our rights under the Fourth Amendment in Arizona v. Gant. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that police do not have the automatic right to search an automobile after the arrest of its occupant(s).  This decision will have a wide ranging effect on police who up until now have beleived that they may search your vehicle if they can arrest you for even the most minor offense. In the case of Mr. Gant, he was arrested for driving with a suspended license, which the police then used as a pretext to search his entire car! When the police officer who conducted the search was asked during Mr. Gant’s supression hearing why the search was conducted, he stated: “Because the law says we can do it.” Thankfully, that is no longer the case.

Minnesota DWI Laws: Guilty Until Proven Innocent

A recent Star Tribune article highlights the absurdity and wastefulness of the system of DWI sanctions in Minnesota. Currently, drivers have their licenses revoked immediately, prior to having their day in court or an opportunity to defend themselves. A driver who feels that his license should not have been revoked is required to sue the Commissioner of Public Safety in civil court in order to bring the case in front of a judge. In many cases, however, the driver must wait months for a day in court and  are without the ability to drive the entire time! In this way, drivers who are later found “not guilty” by a judge are still punished by the immediate loss of license. Furthermore, this system forces drivers to litigate the same issues twice, typically at two different times, and in front of two different judges. Is it wise to be spending out tax dollars on two sets of judges and two sets of attorneys for the government, simply in an effort to punish people before they are convicted of a crime?

A proposal in the Minnesota House of Representatives would give people accused of DWI the chance to defend themselves in court before being punished with the loss of their drivers license. Predictably, MADD and other zealots are against this common sense change.

Minnesota Court of Appeals: Sleeping In Your Car = Driving Drunk

In yet another overreach, the Minnesota Court of Appeals today held that a person found asleep in his car, with no intention of driving, can still be convicted of a DWI. Once again, the courts and prosecutors have decided that the rights of citizens and the common sense application of laws are to be ingnored when it comes to those accused of DWI.  In this case the court is sending the clear message that people should risk driving home after drinking, rather than sleeping it off in a safely parked car until morning. Instead of increasing road safety, the Court of Appeals just made roads more dangerous.