Video of Chuck Ramsay's Minnesota Supreme Court Argument

Chuck Ramsay argued State of Minnesota v. Netland on September 10, 2008. The Minnesota Supreme Court must decide the constitutionality of the state's DWI-DUI statute which criminalizes refusal to submit to an alcohol test.



The issue is particularly difficult because Ms. Netland did not refuse to submit to a test. The breath test machine -- Intoxilyzer 5000 -- would not accept her breath sample. The police officer believed she was "playing" with the machine. Ms. Netland was persistent and demanded a blood test. The officer refused to give her either a blood or urine test.

Not willing to give up, Ms. Netland called an independent testing company while still in jail. The company collected her alcohol sample and had it analyzed. The result: .03 -- well under the legal limit of .08!

We now know that the source code was to blame. See the sections about Inferno and Smoking Gun. Unfortunately, state officials continue to use the same broken software. Innocent people continue to be hurt.
Trackbacks (1) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://www.mndwidefenseblog.com/admin/trackback/92783
Minnesota DWI Defense Blog - April 15, 2009 10:32 AM
Why don’t more drivers fight their DWI charge? Nearly 50% win if they go to trial. Yet, only 2% assert their right to a trial. Florida Today reports the following: DWI TRIALS: 2006: Of 70 DUI trials, 58 percent of...
Comments (1) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
Colorado DUI Lawyer - January 22, 2010 11:59 AM

We have the same problem in Colorado. Few people will take their cases to trial.

Post A Comment / Question Use this form to add a comment to this entry.







Remember personal info?
Send To A Friend Use this form to send this entry to a friend via email.