Minnesota DWI Defense Blog : Roseville DUI Defense Lawyer & Attorney : Ramsay Law Firm : Minneapolis, St. Paul, Minnesota

Today the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in favor of a driver who sought the breath test machine’s software. The driver presented the trial court with documents explaining what the source code is, the issues surrounding the software, an example of a breath-test machine analysis and potential defects in the software.

 This will continue until either

a) the state buys new breath testing equipment from another manufacturer or  

b) CMI, the Intoxilyzer manufacturer turns over the software.

As I’ve said before, they’ll never do it!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

We Won!  Just released from the Minnesota Supreme Court : State v. Underdahl/ Brunner. More about our enthusiasm, and analysis to come.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last month marked the first anniversary of Minnesota’s lawsuit against CMI, the manufacturer of the Intoxilyzer 5000. After the Minnesota Attorney General filed suit – I filed a motion to intervene to ensure the AG’s intentions were in our best interests. I said,

“We fear the attorney general will get the software but will only be able to turn it over under conditions that preclude a meaningful opportunity to examine it.”

“Motion to Intervene Filed in Intoxilyzer Case”, Minnesota Lawyer, July 25, 2008.

My comments were prophetic. 

Two months later the AG and CMI announced they had settled the matter.    The Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safety announced it had solved the problem. He proclaimed to have secured the means for drivers to inspect the source code while, at the same time, freeing the courts, prosecutors and law enforcement from having to deal with the issue. 

The agreement was labeled “Consent Decree and Permanent Injunction.” While it may have ridded the government of the burden of dealing with the vindicating citizens’ rights, it did not solve drivers’ need for access to the source code. It thwarted it. The agreement would have limited citizens’ access to the software to such an extent that it would be impossible for a defense expert to inspect the software.

Fortunately, Judge Frank permitted us to intervene in the suit. He noted that in this rare case, the state attorney general is not adequately representing the interests of Minnesota citizens. He permitted the parties (including the newly added Plaintiffs-Intervener) and other concerned groups to submit written arguments and make oral arguments. 

In February Judge Frank nixed the settlement. He wrote,

In particular, the Court cannot clued that the parties’ proposed mechanism for permitting access to the Source Code serves the public interest and makes the Source code “readily and reasonably available.”

In another order the judge described the AG’s position as a “moving target.” 

THE AG’S PLAYS ITS LATEST CARD: WE DON’T OWN THE SOURCE CODE

The state averred in its Complaint that it is the sole owners of the source code for Minnesota’s Intoxilyzer breath test machines. For example, in its request for its relief, it asked the federal court for an order, “Declaring that pursuant to the U.S. Copyright Act, the State of Minnesota is the sole owner of any and all copyrights to the source code for the Minnesota model of the Intoxilyzer 5000.    Complaint, Prayer for Relief, I (emphasis added).

In an apparent “about face”, the state this month told CMI it was not claiming to be the sole owner of the software. 

As a result of our conversation yesterday, the State wishes to clarify its position regarding ownership of the source code. The State does not allege that it owns the entire source code for the Intoxilyzer 5000EN instruments sold to the State. In this lawsuit, the State is seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the State owns the portion of the source code created for the State.

Letter from Assistant Minnesota Attorney General to CMI’s Local Counsel, dated April 14, 2009.

What is Minnesota afraid of? In future postings I give hard evidence to show what it could be. 

Coming in future blogs:

1.       Bad Breath: Minnesota Makes is a Crime!

2.       What does the state have to hide? See never before seen Emails between Minnesota and CMI:

a.       CMI’s Warning: Don’t use this software! We didn’t do QA or QC checks.

b.      BCA: We know the software has problems, but we’ll fix them later.

c.       Information about disabling a critical scientific safeguard— the ambient fail.

3.       “Smoking Gun” email revisited: Debunking the BCA’s responsive affidavit.

4.       “Inferno” email: Despite Proof of broken software, Minnesota refuses to fix breath test.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

“Consent or Jail!”  is the threat behind Minnesota’s criminal DWI test refusal law. 

Under the law – Minnesota Statute section 169A.20, subd. 2 – it is a crime for a person who decides not to waive their constitutional right,against warrantless search and seizure, when asked by a police officer to take an alcohol test. What about the fourth and fifth amendments?

I presented this issue to the Minnesota Supreme Court which granted my request for review in State v. Netland, but dodged the question when it ruled in February. The issue remains unsettled.  Watch the oral argument before the Supreme Court.
 

 I say to the government, if you want blood, GET A WARRANT! Don’t put people in jail for standing mute.

INEFFECTIVE LAW
 

In a growing trend, Minnesota is one of 15 states to criminalize DWI according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.   Yet, there is nothing to support the efficacy of the unconstitutional law.  Data from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety shows no change in alcohol related deaths since the law went into effect in the early 1990s. 

Now Louisiana’s governor wants to pass the same law. I say to its citizens: Don’t do it. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I really want to know more than the state’s experts so that I do the best job possible for my clients. With greater knowledge, I am able to cross examine the Minnesota BCA lab scientists much more effectively.

In DWI cases, Blood and Urine alcohol testing is performed by a technique called “gas chromatography (GC).” To better understand GC analysis, the American Chemical Society (ACS) has short course (5 days with hands-on laboratory experience) on GC analysis, entitled, “Gas Chromatography: Fundamentals, Troubleshooting, and Method Development (A lecture-laboratory course).”

I will be attending this course in November, 2009.

Overview

This course is designed for beginners and intermediate-level practitioners who want practical laboratory experience in gas chromatography (GC). The lectures—supplemented by problem sets, slides, and video presentations—provide the fundamentals needed to understand the technique and instrumentation involved in this powerful analytical tool. At the end of the class, you will have mastered the fundamentals of GC, participated in five hands-on laboratory sessions, performed reference and literature searches, and learned specialized techniques based on your specific interests.

Agenda

• Day 1: GC Overview -- introduction to GC; GC instrumentation overview; practical GC theory: packed & Capillary; laboratory: GC Familiarization.
• Day 2: Injection Techniques & Quantitative Analysis -- overview of sample introduction techniques; capillary inlet systems: split, splitless, on-column, large volume injectors; qualitative and quantitative analysis; laboratories: comparing injection techniques, troubleshooting injector problems, internal vs. external standard techniques.
• Day 3: Columns -- packed column overview; capillary column technology; temperature programming; laboratories: column dimension and phase selection, laboratory: fast GC.
• Day 4: Detectors -- overview of available detectors; details of FID & TCD; GC/MS; laboratories: GC detector operation, troubleshooting FID and TCD.
• Day 5: Method Development & Temperature Programming -- temperature programming; fundamentals of method development; laboratory: develop a method for a completely unknown mixture.

With the knowledge and laboratory experience from this course, I will be Minnesota’s lab expert's worse nightmare.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In March, 2008 the Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safety sued CMI, the manufacturer of the state’s breath test machines. At the time the Commissioner claimed it was the owner of the source code (software) that operates the Intoxilyzer 5000 breath test machine. Specifically, the Minnesota Attorney General claimed in the suit,

In its contract with the State, Defendant CMI conveyed to the State ownership of any and all copyrightable material and documents created in the course of its performance of the contact. These materials include the source code to the Minnesota model of the Intoxilyzer 5000. 

Complaint, para. 51.

In its request for its relief, it asked the federal court for an order, “Declaring that pursuant to the U.S. Copyright Act, the State of Minnesota is the sole owner of any and all copyrights to the source code for the Minnesota model of the Intoxilyzer 5000.    Prayer for Relief, I.

A SHOCKING CHANGE

Yesterday, the Office of the Attorney General retreated from its claim that the state is the sole owner of the source code. In a letter sent by email to CMI lawyers, the AG claimed to own only a limited portion of the software. 

As a result of our conversation yesterday, the State wishes to clarify its position regarding ownership of the source code. The State does not allege that it owns the entire source code for the Intoxilyzer 5000EN instruments sold to the State. In this lawsuit, the State is seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the State owns the portion of the source code created for the State.

Letter from Assistant Minnesota Attorney General to CMI’s Local Counsel.

Why the retreat? 

It is obvious from the state’s conduct we cannot trust the AG to fight for citizen’s rights. Last fall the state and CMI attempted to bury the source code in a “settlement.” Fortunately, Federal Judge Frank noted the AG “cannot adequately represent” the interests of Minnesotans, and permitted me to intervene in the lawsuit.  I objected to the settlement whichJudge Frank ultimately rejected in February. 

                Is the Minnesota AG intentionally attempting to lose the federal source code case? 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It appears prosecutors continue to be concerned about the so-called "source code" issue in Minnesota, despite recent victories in the appellate courts. Today, prosecutors from Hennepin and Washington counties notified my office they would dismiss the charges against two of my clients. Both were Intoxilyzer 5000 breath test cases involving the source code issue.

The state has not dismissed the impaired driving charge. In order to prevail, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that alcohol impaired my clients usual skill, intellect and coordination -- a difficult task without an alcohol test!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Another appellate court – this time in Arizona – has overturned a trial court’s Intoxilyzer software ruling. The appellate panel said the judge should not have issued the order because the prosecutors did not have possession of the software and had no way of getting it.

In Minnesota, the Intoxilyzer 5000 – the breath test machine used in DWI cases – test result is admitted at trial without any expert testimony. All that is required is a police officer to testify that he was trained to operate the machine and the machine did not self-report any errors. The burden then shifts to the driver to show why the result is incorrect. Since Minnesota does not save the breath sample (with the use of a simple, $1 device) the driver faces an impossible burden.

Email communication between the Intoxilyzer 5000 manufacturer, CMI, Inc., and the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, reveals critical flaws in the device. As I’ve blogged previously and has been reported by local FOX and CBS news, innocent people – those with alcohol concentrations below the legal limit – are going to jail.

                                 Guilty by Secret Black Box = Guilty by “Star Chamber”

Innocent people going to jail based on a secret black box. The state and CMI prevent the experts from inspecting the software – the only way in most cases to refute the test results. This denies citizens of their Constitutional Right of Confrontation, of Due Process, to a Trial by Jury, Presumption of Innocence and to Present a Complete Defense.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Minnesota Court of Appeals rejected another driver's source code request. In Chastek v. Commissioner of Public Safety and State of Minnesota, the court found the driver did not convince the court the source code was not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence in the implied consent case, and that it did not relate to the driver's guilt or innocence in the criminal case. The court concludes that the driver failed to show "any relevancy" of the source code.

The Intoxilyzer 5000 source code (software) runs every aspect of the test, including ensuring an acceptable breath sample, employing critical scientific safeguards, and evaluating the alcohol concentration. The software is not just relevant to the breath test result, it IS the process used to determine the alcohol concentration.

Below is the table of contents I include in my source code motions to demonstrate the need for the source code. Although I've never counted, the entire submission is approximately 2000 total pages.

                                              Motion to Compel Discovery of Source Code

                                           Index of Exhibits And Supporting Documentation

SCHOLARLY ARTICLES

1. Thomas E. Workman, Jr. Litigation in the United States: What Challenges Have Been Asserted, and Where is this Litigation Heading Analysis of ‘Source Code’? (August 30, 2007).

     Article presenting a detailed overview of issues surrounding "source code" and why independent analysis of the source code is an essential element to providing a complete defense to a DWI charge.

2. C. Dennis Simpson, et. al. Effects of Mouth Alcohol on Breath Alcohol Results, Int’l Journal of Drug Testing, Vol. 3.

     Scholarly article analyzing the source-code operated "slope detector" of the BAC DataMaster (a breath test device similar to the Intoxilyzer 5000), concluding that the programming of the source code for the "slope detector" fails to perform as allegedly designed in 48% of breath tests.

3. Michael P. Hlastala, et. al. The Slope Detector Does Not Always Detect the Presence of Mouth Alcohol.

     Scholarly article analyzing the source-code operated "slope detector" in both the BAC DataMaster and Intoxilyzer 5000 breath testing devices, concluding that this feature is not programmed to act as designed.

4. C. Dennis Simpson, et. al., Varying Length of Expirational Blow and End Result Breath Alcohol, Int’l Journal of Drug Testing, Vol. 3.

     Scholarly article analyzing the effects of breath volume on breath alcohol content for the BAC DataMaster (a breath test device similar to the Intoxilyzer 5000), concluding that the more breath a test subject provides, the higher the reported result.

CASE LAW

5. Comm’r of Pub. Safety v. Underdahl, 735 N.W.2d 706 (Minn. 2007).

     Holding, inter alia, that the source code to the Intoxilyzer 5000 is discoverable evidence.

6. State v. Olcott, 2008 WL 1747675 (April 15, 2008)

     Holding that, in order to obtain discovery of the source code to the Intoxilyzer 5000, defendant’s must make a minimal showing that this source code relates to defendant’s guilt or innocence before a motion compelling additional discovery under Rule 9 will be granted.

7. Order of the Supreme Court in State v. Underdahl/Brunner (Underdahl II), A07-2293 & A07-2428,   dated August 5, 2008.

     Order granting review of the Court of Appeals decision in State v. Underdahl, wherein the Court of Appeals overturned the trial court’s order compelling the State to disclose the source code to the Intoxilyzer 5000.

8. Petition for further review in State v. Brunner, A07-2428.

     Petition for further review that was granted by the Supreme Court (Underdahl II), providing factual and legal basis for compelling disclosure of the source code

9. House v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 2008 WL 162212 (Ky. App. 2008).

     Reversing a lower court’s order quashing a subpoena duces tecum to CMI seeking production of their source code, and stating, "Because a flaw in the computer source code of the Intoxilyzer 5000 would be consequential to the accuracy of the reading intended to be relied upon by the Commonwealth, such evidence is relevant and admissible."

10. Order of the Honorable Judge Deborah Bernini in State v. Livingston, et. al, CR-20071499, dated September 10, 2008.

     Order from an Arizona judge who heard testimony from both Toby Hall, President of CMI and Thomas Workman, software expert, detailing CMI’s lack of legally protectable interests in their source code.

EXPERT AFFIDAVITS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

11. Affidavit and supporting documentation of electrical and computer engineer Harley R. Myler, dated September 9, 2006.

     Concluding, inter alia, that independent analysis of the source code to the Intoxilyzer 5000 is essential to determining the reliability of any test result.

12. Affidavit and supporting documentation of forensic scientist Thomas R. Burr, dated October 11,  2007.

     Concluding, inter alia, that access to the source code to the Intoxilyzer 5000 is essential to determine if the device functions according to its design.

13. Affidavit and supporting documentation of forensic scientist Thomas R. Burr, dated December 17, 2007.

     Concluding, inter alia, that access to the source code to the Intoxilyzer 5000 is essential to determine why Intoxilyzer 5000 Serial No. 68-010185 is transmitting different test results to the BCA than it is printing out locally at the time of the actual test.

14. Declaration of Thomas E. Workman, Jr., dated October 31, 2008.

 ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT SOURCE CODE IS RELEVANT

15. Breath Test Operator Training Course, Intoxilyzer 5000 (2nd Ed., Version 3.1, November 10, 2005), page 11.

     Explains that the CPU for the Intoxilyzer 5000 utilizes a "Z-80 microprocessor that utilizes an EPROM for program memory and handles all operator commands and interface devices."

16. Intoxilyzer 5000EN Sales Brochure.

     Stating that, "Every aspect of operation, from displaying and printing of information to the basic electrical and mechanical functions, is micro-computer [source code] controlled."

17. Intoxilyzer 5000EN Court Challenge "Frequently Asked Questions," January 2008 (originally posted at http://www.dps.state.mn.us.

     Stating that, "The source code is important because it determines what programming is loaded into the Intoxilyzer – basically, it tells the Intoxilyzer how to interpret the physical data it receives when someone blows into the device."

18. Report on Behalf of Defendants, submitted to Judge Michael P. King, analyzing the source code to the Alcotest 7110 Mk III C (Docket No. 58,879).

     An analysis of the source code to a similar breath testing machine, uncovering 24 major defects in the source code, and highlighting nine defects that would have the greatest impact on the validity of test results.

 19. Memo from David Ferguson and Robert Marshall, Tennessee Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Forensic Scientists, to Samera Zavaro, Tennessee Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Forensic Scientist Supervisor, Dated September 12, 2003.

     Concluding that access and evaluation of the controller software (source code) to a breath testing machine is a "critical part" of any request for proposal evaluation.

20. Cross Examination of Karen Kierzek in the case of State v. Netland, Court File No. 06001264 (October 3, 2006)

     Testimony by BCA Expert Karen Kierzek that the reliability of the source-code-operated "slope detector" in the Intoxilyzer 5000 is questionable.

21. Affidavit of President of CMI Toby Hall, dated February 7, 2008.

     Admitting, inter alia, that "the Source Code for the Intoxilyzer 5000 has been coded to perform all of the functions for conducting breath tests."

22. Proposed Protective Order from Michael S. Hargis, on behalf of CMI, dated September 18, 2007.

     Stating that, "disclosure of such information including the Source Code would cause irreparable harm to CMI, Inc." and tacitly admitting to the relevance and importance of the Source Code to the operation of the Intoxilyzer 5000

23. Minn. Stat §206.805, subd. 2 (2006) State Voting Systems Contracts

     Statute requiring disclosure of any source code related to contracts for voting machines in the State of Minnesota, to be reviewed by, inter alia, an independent third-party evaluator and the secretary of state.

24. Virginia Department of Planning and Budget, Decision Package Narrative Justification (2007).

     Funding Request from the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Department of Forensic Science for the funding necessary to replace its fleet of Intoxilyzer 5000 breath test machines because the Intoxilyzer 5000 is, "dated, unstable and unreliable."

25. Direct Examination of Thomas Workman in the case of State v. Livingston, CR-20071499, June 20, 2008.

     Careful analysis of why the source code is essential to the operation of the Intoxilyzer and how source code review is necessary to ensure the reliability of that machine.

26. Direct and Cross Examination of Karin Kierzek in the case of State v. Trujillo, Court File No.: 19-T9-07-059472, December 15, 2008.

    Admitting that the BCA received an updated copy of the source code that was deliberately not implemented, and failed to do side by side testing on the current version of the source code.

27. Cross Examination of Karin Kierzek in the case of Keeler v. Commissioner of Public Safety, Court File No.: 27-CV-08-18350, January 29, 2009.

     Demonstrates known errors with the source code going deliberately uncorrected.

 ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT STATE HAS CONTROL OF SOURCE CODE

28. State of Minnesota Request for Proposal, Evidentiary Breath Alcohol Test Instruments, pages 7 and 22.

     Defining Ownership of Copyrights to the Source Code (page 7, paragraph 27) and stating provisions for disclosure of information to defense counsel (page 22, paragraph 12).

29. CMI’s Response to Minnesota’s Request for Proposal, dated October 25, 1996.

     This letter fully accepts the terms and conditions of the State’s Request for Proposal, incorporating these provisions into any future contract between CMI and the State of Minnesota.

30. Contract between CMI and the State of Minnesota..

     Confirming that the terms in the State’s Request for Proposal were accepted by both CMI and the State of Minnesota.

 31. Complaint filed in State of Minnesota v. CMI of Kentucky, Inc., U.S. District Court of Minnesota Civil Docket No. 0:08-cv-00603-DWF-AJB.

     Averring that the State of Minnesota is the owner of the source code to the Intoxilyzer 5000 as the basis for the Complaint. This Complaint is also internally contradictory; compare paragraphs 22 and 24, which alternatively aver that the Minnesota BCA has and has not made prior requests for the source code. These paragraphs, in turn, can be compared to BCA toxicology expert Glen Hardin’s sworn testimony that as of November 6, 2007, the BCA had never attempted to obtain the source code from CMI.

32. Statements of Assistant Attorney General Emerald Gratz in the case of Cihlar v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, Washington County Court File No. 82-CV-07-482 (March 11, 2008)

     On-the-record statements by representative of the Attorney General’s Office that averments from the complaint that initiated the currently pending federal lawsuit related to the Source Code were merely, "for the purposes of initiating a federal lawsuit," and are supposedly "not an admission."

33. Cross Examination of Glen Hardin in the case of Quigley v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, Sherburne County Court File No. CO-07-506 (November 6, 2007)

     Testimony by BCA Expert Glen Hardin that neither he nor the BCA has ever attempted to obtain a copy of the source code to the Intoxilyzer 5000 from CMI.

34. Examination of Glen Hardin in the case of Hunter v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, Sherburne County Court File No. 71-CV-08-694 (July 7, 2008)

     Testimony by BCA Expert Glen Hardin explaining that the source code is a critical component of the Intoxilyzer 5000 and that the software "fail safes"controlled by the source code are necessary to render the test result scientifically valid and reliable.

35. Order of Federal Judge Donovan Frank in the case of State of Minnesota v. CMI, Inc. of Kentucky, CV-08-603, dated November 6, 2008.

     Finding that Minnesota drivers were not adequately represented by the Attorney General’s Office with respect to the "source code" issue and stating that "as persons being prosecuted for DWI offenses using the results of the Intoxilyzer 5000EN as evidence, [Applicants] can claim an interest relating to the subject of this action and the disposition of the action may impair or impede their ability to protect their interest."

ALL DISCLOSED E-MAIL CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN CMI AND THE MNBCA

          Enclosed please find true and correct copies of all e-mail correspondence between CMI and the BCA, disclosed pursuant to a court order, including the previously cited e-mails that are relevant to the current motion to compel discovery.

INSTANCES OF ACTUAL ERRORS GENERATED BY THE INTOXILYZER 5000

A. Intoxilyzer Serial No. 68-010322, Test Results from 7-2-2006 and Usage/Maintenance Log spanning 5-2-2006 through 7-11-2006

B. Intoxilyzer Serial No. 68-010172, Test Results from 2-4-2007 and Usage/Maintenance Log spanning 12-4-2006 through 2-23-2007

C. Intoxilyzer Serial No. 68-010253, Test Results from 3-31-2007 and Usage/Maintenance Log spanning 1-31-2007 through 4-6-2007

D. Intoxilyzer Serial No. 68-010231, Test Results from 4-27-2007 and Usage/Maintenance Log spanning 2-27-2007 through 5-24-2007

E. Intoxilyzer Serial No. 68-010158, Test Results from 1-4-2008 and Usage/Maintenance Log spanning 11-4-2007 through 1-11-2008

F. E-mail Conversation between Patrick Pulju of the Minnesota BCA and Brian Faulkner of CMI, (disclosed pursuant to a court order and dated September 27-28, 2006).

CRIMINAL ORDERS COMPELLING THE DISCLOSURE OF THE SOURCE CODE

I. Order and Memorandum of Honorable Judge Skipper J. Pearson in State v. Rohde, Stearns County District Court File No. T8-06-17005 (February 7, 2007)

II. Order and Memorandum of Honorable Judge Kenneth A. Sandvik in State v. Pederson, Cook County District Court File No. CR-05-25 (November 20, 2006)

III. Order and Memorandum of Honorable Judge Patrice K. Sutherland in State v. Parten, Scott County District Court File No. 70-CR-06-15448 (August 20, 2007)

IV. Order and Memorandum of Honorable Judge Patrice K. Sutherland in State v. Nihart, Dakota County District Court File No. K3-07-1986 (September 12, 2007)

V. Order and Memorandum of Honorable Judge Donald J. Venne in State v. Sumstad, Anoka County District Court File No. 02-K1-07-953 (January 25, 2008)

VI. Order and Memorandum of Honorable Judge Jack Nordby in State v. Hagen, Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CR-07-105717 (December 10, 2008)

VII.Order and Memorandum of Honorable Judge Paul Widick in State v. Keller, Stearns County District Court File No. K1-06-2880 (January 25, 2008)

VIII. Order and Memorandum of Honorable Judge William F. Thuet in State v. Rademacher, Dakota County District Court File No. K4-07-2581 (November 19, 2007)

IX. Order and Memorandum of Honorable Judge Edward Lynch in State v. Cramer, Dakota County District Court File No. K1-07-1338 (December 11, 2007)

X. Order and Memorandum of Honorable Judge Robert F. Carolan in State v. Harmon, Dakota County District Court File No. T7-07-70356 (October 11, 2007)

XI. Order and Memorandum of Honorable Judge Philip T. Kanning in State v. Adams, Carver County District Court File No. 10-CR-05-314 (October 12, 2007)

XII. Order and Memorandum of Honorable Judge Robert A. Awsumb in State v. Tagtmeir, Ramsey County District Court File No. T7-07-12699 (January 2, 2008)

XIII. Order and Memorandum of Honorable Judge Kevin W. Eide in State v. Zenobian, Carver County District Court File No. 10-CR-07678 (November 14, 2007)

XIV. Order and Memorandum of Honorable Judge Stephen J. Askew in State v. Reed, Anoka County District Court File No. 02-CR-07-10323 (May 2, 2008)

XV. Order and Memorandum of Honorable Judge Jon A. Maturi in State v. Halvorsen, Itasca County District Court File No.: 31-CR-07-4271 (March 12, 2008)

XVI. Order and Memorandum of Honorable John R. McBride in State v. Wiegele, Chisago County District Court File No.: 13-CR-07-1780 (July 1, 2008)

XVII. Order and Memorandum of Honorable Jack S. Nordby in State v. Gadow, Hennepin County District Court File No.: 27-CR-08-46085 (November 18, 2008)

CIVIL ORDERS COMPELLING THE DISCLOSURE OF THE SOURCE CODE

i. Order and Memorandum of Honorable Judge Robert F. Carolan in Chapman v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, Dakota County District Court File No. C9-07-13737 (August 30, 2007)

ii. Order and Memorandum of Honorable Judge John R. McBride in Weidner v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, Chisago County District Court File No. 13-CV-06-871 (October 11, 2007)

iii. Order and Memorandum of Honorable Judge David E. Doyscher in Peterson v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, Washington County District Court File No. CV-07-5360 (October 10, 2007)

iv. Order and Memorandum of Honorable Judge Gary R. Schurrer in Wahlstrom v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, Washington County District Court File No. CV-07-267 (December 21, 2007)

v. Order and Memorandum of Honorable Judge Cara Lee Neville in Sher v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CV-07-20686 (April 18, 2008)

vi. Order and Memorandum of Honorable Judge Michael V. Sovis in Dambroten, et. al. v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, Dakota County District Court File Nos. C2-07-14423; CX-07-12435; C9-07-14158; and C3-07-14415 (October 23, 2007)

vii. Order and Memorandum of Honorable Judge Kevin S. Burke in Diethart v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CV-07-20566 (January 3, 2008)

viii. Order and Memorandum of Honorable Judge Donald J. Venne in Oslund v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, Anoka County District Court File No. 02-CV-07-4966 (February 12, 2008)

ix. Order and Memorandum of Honorable Judge Martha M. Simonett in McNamara v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, Dakota County District Court File No. C5-07-3223 (October 23, 2007)

x. Order and Memorandum of Honorable Judge Kenneth L. Jorgensen in McCullough v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, Washington County District Court File No. CV-07-282 (January 11, 2008)

xi. Order and Memorandum of Honorable Judge Cara Lee Neville in Hald v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CV-07-15230 (April 3, 2008)

xii. Order and Memorandum of Honorable Judge Lloyd Zimmerman in French v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CV-07-11312 (April 14, 2008)

xiii. Order and Memorandum of Honorable Judge Mary J. Theisen in Reierson v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, Scott County District Court File No. 70-CV-07-21950 (November 15, 2007)

xiv. Order and Memorandum of Honorable Judge Nancy J. Logering in Schwarz v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, Anoka County District Court File No. 02-CV-07-4736 (November 29, 2007)

xv. Order and Memorandum of Honorable Judge Timothy J. McManus in Pedersen v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, Dakota County District Court File No. C8-07-12305 (February 5, 2008)

xvi. Order and Memorandum of Honorable Leslie M. Metzen in Bettenberg v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, Dakota County District Court File No.: C7-07-015955 (April 29, 2008)

xvii. Order and Memorandum of Honorable Judge Diane M. Hanson in Reierson v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, Scott County District Court File No.: 70-CV-07-21950 (March 8, 2008)

xviii. Order of the Honorable Judge Gabriel D. Giancola in Mullen v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, Hennepin County District Court File No.: 27-CV-08-6609

xix. Order of the Honorable Thomas W. Wexler in Breitenfield v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, Hennepin County District Court File No.: 27-CV-07-14168 (November 13, 2008)
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

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 defendants were convicted, and 42 percent were acquitted.
• 2007: Of 70 DUI trials, 56 percent of defendants were convicted, and 44 percent were acquitted.
• 2008: Of 47 DUI trials, 55 percent of defendants were convicted, and 45 percent were acquitted.

DWI CONVICTION TOTALS:

• 2007 DUI conviction rate: 93 percent
• 2008 DUI conviction rate: 95 percent

DWI PLEA DEALS:
The majority of DUI cases are resolved through pleas. In 2007, that was the case with 97 percent of DUI cases. In 2008, 94 percent of DUI cases were resolved through pleas.

These are Florida statistics. Our firm’s track record is even better than Florida!

I was unable to find such statistics from Minnesota. Why do you think Minnesota does not make them readily available?

If you find yourself charged with a DWI, don’t roll over – fight! You have a decent shot at winning if you hire a lawyer who is on the cutting edge of DWI and takes cases to trial. You have a zero chance of winning if you plead guilty.

Not only do we have the education, scientific training, and experience it takes to win, but we teach other lawyers how!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link