Minnesota DWI Lawyer Blogs on Minnesota Supreme Court's Denial of Further Review of the Source Code Issue!

The State petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling in State v. Underdahl which ordered the State to produce the intoxilyzer source code used to convict people of exceeding the legal limit of .08.

On July 22, 2009, the Minnesota Supreme Court denied the State's motion for reconsideration. Yipee!!

F.T. Sessoms, Minnesota DWI Attorney, Minnesota DUI Lawyer, Minneapolis DWI Attorney, Minneapolis DUI Lawyer

Minnesota DWI Lawyer Blogs on the Minnesota Source Code Letter

Since it will cost thousands of dollars and approximately 6 months to properly evaluate the software used to convict people using the Intoxilyzer 5000 EN, we have sent all of the Chief Judges of the Districts of Minnesota the attached letter asking that all criminal and civil cases be delayed pending the evaluation of the code.

F.T. Sessoms, Minnesota DWI Attorney, Minnesota DUI Lawyer, Minneapolis DWI Attorney, Minneapolis DUI Lawyer

Source Code Letter

Minnesota DWI Lawyer Blogs on Minnesota Intoxilyzer Source Code Settlement in United States District Court

On July 16th the Federal District Court in Minnesota approved a settlement allowing individuals charged with DWI's in the state access to the source code, or software, used to run the intoxilzyer 5000 EN machine.

The problem with the settlement is that it requires that the source code be examined at the CMI plant (the manufacturer) in Kentucky. Since the costs of such an analysis will run into the thousands of dollars, this settlement is beyond the reach of most individuals charged with DWI.

I am proud to belong to the Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice (MSCJ). We are coordinating the efforts of the defense bar to retain experts to travel to Kentucky to review the source code as allowed under the terms of the settlement agreement. STAY TUNED!

F.T. Sessoms, Minnesota DWI Attorney, Minnesota DUI Lawyer, Minneapolis DWI Attorney, Minneapolis DUI Lawyer

State v CMI Order 7 16 09 Approving Settlement