Forfeiture: How To Solve The State's Budget Crisis By Ignoring the Constitution, pt. 1 of 2

Today is the first blog in a two-part series regarding Minnesota’s forfeiture laws. As any polished attorney knows, most DWI arrests included numerous “collateral” punishments. You will lose your license; you may become ineligible for car insurance; you may even lose your job. However, what few people know is that it’s also likely that the State is going to seize your car and sell it for profit.

These “vehicle forfeitures” aren’t just reserved for the five-time repeat offenders that make the news. In fact, even a first time DWI arrest can result in vehicle forfeiture . . .

Example: you and your significant other are driving to the babysitter’s after going out for dinner with friends. You had two glasses of wine with your meal, but don’t feel the slightest bit tipsy. You pick up your 8 year old child, and head for home. However, before you get there, the police pull you over for “weaving within your own lane.”

The officer asks if you had anything to drink, and you honestly answer “yes.” (It’s not a crime to drink and then drive in Minnesota - it’s only a crime to be impaired). You are told to step out of your car and perform some field sobriety tests. You do fine, but the officer thinks otherwise, and arrests you for DWI - in front of your family.

You get taken down to the police station and told that you need to submit to a breath test on the Intoxilyzer 5000. You’re nervous, but at the same time anxious to pass the test and rejoin your family. However, no matter how hard you blow, that Intoxilyzer won’t “accept” your sample. The officer is yelling in your ear to “blow harder” but no matter what you do, the machine keeps calling your sample “deficient.” After four minutes, the officer tells you that he’s going to charge you with “refusal to test.”

You can cry, plead and beg at this point, but the fact is that you are going to be charged with a crime - and not just any old crime - an enhanced crime. Because you had someone under the age of 16 inside your vehicle, and because you “refused” to test, you are going to be charged with a gross misdemeanor, 2nd degree DWI.

And woe to someone who has even one DWI conviction already on their record. With one conviction on your record, it’s very easy for a DWI arrest to turn into a situation where the State is going to sell your car for profit.

Now, wait. The police officer that chose to arrest you can take your car, immediately, and can then sell that car for profit before you even get to complain to a judge? That’s right . . . although if you have a good attorney in your corner, you can still get your car back.

Be sure to check back Monday for an explanation of what you can do to protect your rights to your vehicle.

Please read part 2 of the blog here.

Minnesota's Intoxilyzer: A Flawed DWI Breath Test Machine

New Court Transcript: A Five-Part Series – Pt. 1:

Minnesota Knows of Critical Software Flaw; Refuses to Install Patch

A recent Court Transcript provides new information into the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension’s (BCA) concealment of critical flaws in the software that runs the Intoxilyzer 5000, the state’s breath testing machine.  The transcript was produced as a result of testimony taken in the cases of State v. MH, and MH v. Commissioner of Public Safety in Crow Wing County.  This is the first of a five-part series to publish the new revelations.

The August 26, 2009 transcript includes new revelations of the source code/software problem which erroneously accuses drivers of refusing to take an alcohol test.  Refusal is a crime under Minnesota’s DWI laws, which I’ve addressed previously in my blog and on my website

The transcript of the testimony of a BCA forensic scientist reveals:

  1. The BCA is aware of the “potential” problem with the Intoxilyzer rejecting what should be an acceptable sample;
  1. CMI, the Intoxilyzer 5000’s manufacturer, provided the BCA with a software patch to correct the problem;
  1. The BCA did not test or install the corrected version of the software;
  1. The state chose not to test or install the software was to avoid enflaming the “source code” issue;
  1. The BCA employee speculates that cost may have also been a factor in the decision to not test or upgrade the flawed software. 


Here is an Excerpt of the transcript:

Q:        So we are aware of a problem with the current version of software that would reject what might be otherwise valid breath sample, right?

A:         Potentially, not definitely.

Q:        And the CMI provided BCA with a fix that purportedly corrected that problem, right?

A:         Purportedly.

Q:        And instead of testing it, the BCA shelved it, correct?

A:         We did not test it, correct.

Q:        And one of the reasons was because the BCA did not want to inflame the Source Code issue; is that right?

A:         … [T]hat was at least part of the decision, but I don't know that that was the exclusive decision. I mean, there's also the incredible cost and time involved, and doing a software change, and ultimately we've been asking for money for three years for new instruments when we were hoping we would get that.

Q:        What would be the cost of fixing this problem with the software?

A:         The actual cost is in time and travel.

Q:        How much would that be?

A:         Several thousand, but I don't know.

Q:        Several thousand dollars?

A:         Several thousand, yes.

Q:        How do you think that balances against people being erroneously deemed a refusal to test?

A:         That would be my opinion. My opinion is I don't believe that I can tell you what the value of the State's money is. I don't think I can answer that question.

A complete transcript will be posted on Ramsay Law Firm’s website, soon.

Minnesota’s Intoxilyzer: A flawed DWI Breath Test Machine

New Court Transcript: A Five-Part Series

To Come:

Part 2:  The Current Software:  A Change in Breath Sample Acceptance Criteria

Part 3:  -What Does It Mean?

Part 4:  -A Change in Breath Testing Procedures: Are Police Properly Conducting Tests?

Part 5:-BCA Concealment:  The Public, Courts

 

Please view our website at Ramsay Results

 

Please follow us on Facebook at Ramsay Results – Facebook

 

Please follow Mr. Ramsay via Twitter

WCCO News Story: Faulty DWI-DUI Breath Test Destroys Innocent Drivers' Lives

The media is beginning to recognize the significance of Minnesota's broken Intoxilyzers -- innocent people are losing their licenses, their way of life and their freedom.

CBS affiliate, WCCO, broadcast a story of one of our firm's clients. The Minnesota breath test machine erroneously reported "CW" had refused to submit to a breath test.  As a result, under Minnesota law, she lost her license for one year and now faces criminal charges that impose four times the amount of jail than if she had failed the test (over .08).

The reason for the erroneous test results:  the machine's software contains bugs.  State officials and CMI, the manufacturer, are fighting to keep us from examining the source code. 

See WCCO's story below, and the the blog entries about the source code battle and proof of some of the fatally flawed software.

 

The only way to ensure justice for Minnesotans is to immediately stop all breath testing in Minnesota until the problem is corrected. 

Contact Chuck Ramsay immediately if the state is attempting to use the Minnesota Intoxilyzer to take your license or send you to jail.

 

Top Minnesota Officials Conspire to Convict Innocent Drivers of DWI

Citizens Lose License, Vehicles & Freedom Despite Available Software Fix


Since at least 2004 Minnesota's breath test machine has erroneously found innocent drivers of violating the state's impaired driving laws. A programming error in the Intoxilyzer 5000 software falsely reports drivers of blowing an insufficient amount of air into the machine for analysis. Under state law, a person loses their license for at least one year and even first time offenders are put in jeopardy of serving time in jail, paying huge fines and forced supervised probation. Other penalties may include loss of license plates and vehicle forfeiture. Innocent drivers also face collateral consequences such as loss of job, and can destroy an entire family's way of life.

"Smoking Gun"

Earlier this year I discovered evidence of the problem. The Minnesota BCA alerted CMI, the breath test machine's manufacturer, that software installed in 1994 made it more difficult or even impossible for some people to give a sufficient sample.

See Smoking Gun Email

In response, BCA scientists issued sworn affidavits dismissing the email, claiming the manufacturer had satisfactorily addressed the problem. Implying that innocent people would not be affected, the documents conclude no material changes were made and the test results continue to be sound science.

See Affidavits of BCA Scientists David Edin and Karin Kierzak

"Raging Inferno"

Newly discovered documents seem to refute the BCA's claim. Emails show that in April, 2007, CMI acknowledge the machine's erroneous rejection of otherwise valid samples and provided a corrected version of the software. With full knowledge of critical flaws in the machine's software, the BCA has refused to install the corrected software.

BCA Sources: Commissioner Prevents BCA from Correcting Software
Two credible sources have confirmed this, including the former supervisor of the BCA's toxicology section. One source explained the Commissioner of Public Safety ordered the lab to make no changes to the software to avoid attracting unwanted attention to the breath test machine.

The Source-Code Issue

In 2006 defense attorneys began demanding access to the Intoxilyzer source code, the human readable software which is compiled into a machine readable language. The commissioner believed the lawyers' so-called "source code" challenge would quickly blow over. Any software changes would prolong the litigation and add expense and aggravation.

The "source code" issue didn't blow over. It blew up.

Sources: AG's Office Involved in Cover-Up Conspiracy

According to the sources, the Office of the Attorney General was also involved. The AG office, which provides legal counsel and representation to the Commissioner, either acquiesced or approved of the plan to keep the software as it to avoid exacerbating the source code issue.

See Inferno Documents Showing CMI Knows of Broken Software, Yet Refuses to Upload Fix

AG Files Federal Law Suit

CMI has refused to produce the software for independent analysis. In March, under pressure
from state judges who had dismissed hundreds of DWI cases, the AG filed suit against CMI in federal court. Publicly the state claimed it wanted to obtain the source code from CMI.
Many attorneys, including this author, believed the federal suit was a rouse only to stem the tide of DWI dismissals in state court. A few believed the AG intended to use the suit for other purposes such as to delay any source code ruling until after the state acquired new breath test devices, or to keep defense lawyers from seeing the source code completely.

Motion to Intervene Denied
The "smoking gun" email triggered action. Believing the AG did not intend to act in the best interests of citizens, this author filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit in early June, 2008. The federal court issued its ruling this week denying the motion.

Last Friday the AG and the CMI announced it had reached a settlement. The AG reported it was victorious, having secured access to the source code and did so without cost to drivers or their experts. A thorough analysis reveals of the agreement does nothing for Minnesota citizens.
Breath Testing Should Cease Immediately Until Fixed
In June after the discovery of the Smoking Gun, this author called for an immediate moratorium of Minnesota's DWI breath test program. In response, the government issued sworn affidavits which are contradicted by newly discovered documents and by very credible BCA sources.
Nothing changed. Innocent people continue to be hurt.
Recent Case Example of Innocent Driver
A good example is displayed here. This person was arrested after a cell phone caller claimed a group of drunk people were about to get into a car and drive. Police stopped my client and eventually brought her to the police station for breath testing.

Under penalty of incarceration, Minnesota DWI statutes require drivers to blow two sufficient breath samples into the machine for analysis. If the machine reports the samples to be deficient, drivers are charged with criminal test refusal - a crime more severe than blowing over .08. Consequences range from one year loss of license to jail. People lose their jobs and it can negatively change their entire way of life.

See How Broken Source Code Adversely Affected My Client's Breath Test Here

This woman had only a 0.061% alcohol concentration - well under the 0.08 limit. For her first sample she blew 1.8 liters of air, well over the minimum 1.1 liters. The machine did not accept her second sample, despite apparently providing at least as much air. Although the machine determine her second sample to be 0.064%, it reported her sample "deficient." The state revoked her license, and charged her with Gross Misdemeanor Test Refusal under Minnesota's DWI statutes.

This is a real life example of the ramifications of the state's willful and deliberate disregard for the rights of innocent people. She was well under the legal limit and provided one sufficient sample of air. The machine using defective software deemed her second sample deficient for no apparent cause.

Help!

If the state's top prosecutor or her office is involved in this conspiracy to cover up the critically flawed breath test machine, who will put a stop to this?
You can help. Call your state and federal representatives. Tell them to put a stop to this NOW! While we can and should do what we can to stop the carnage on the highways caused by drunken driving, we should not do carnage to the constitution in the process.

Look for more information on my website.

Minnesota AG Encouraged Concealment of Intoxilyzer's Critical Defects

Minnesota DWI Lawyer Exposes "Smoking Gun" Proving Need for Software Review

Criminal Defense Attorney Chuck Ramsay announced today that he will intercede in the Minnesota Department of Public Safety's federal lawsuit against Intoxilyzer manufacturer CMI of Kentucky, Inc.

In March 2008, The Minnesota Attorney General filed a federal suit against CMI on behalf of the Minnesota's Commissioner of Public Safety. The suit alleges that CMI breached the contract for the sale and maintenance of a fleet of evidentiary breath test instruments to be used by the State, for the purpose of investigating and prosecuting drunk driving cases.

CMI agreed in the contract to sell and maintain the fleet of instruments and to release the software when ordered by the courts. CMI also expressly agreed that any intellectual property material originating and arising out of the contract would become the sole property of the State. CMI breached both of those obligations.

Ramsay believes the state filed suit only in response to judges' complaints of the attorney general's lackluster response to aggressive litigation by leading criminal defense attorneys demanding access to the software.

Ramsay states that as early as 2006, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) knew its 200 plus Intoxilyzers were broken. Minnesota's Intoxilyzer 5000 displays a driver's alcohol results on its LED readout, yet sporadically records a higher result on the final test record. The state discovered this and other fatal defects after hastily installing the current Intoxilyzer software in 2005. The BCA documented the critical errors in an email it sent to CMI.

Ramsay labeled the document the "smoking gun," which evidences the need for independent review of the Intoxilyzer's software.

Despite the critical flaws, the State continues to use the bug-riddled software as the foundation of its breath testing program. According to the BCA's 2006 annual report, the state tested nearly 34,000 citizens with the current Intoxilyzer and software.

The BCA has not fixed the broken machines on the advice the AG's office according to one BCA source. The AG, fearing an escalation in the so-called source code challenge, advised the BCA to wait until the software challenge had lost momentum. Concealing the information was essential to winning the software battle against defense attorneys.

Ramsay is intervening on behalf of four of his clients in the federal lawsuit the state filed against the manufacturer. "Its clear the AG will not protect the rights of Minnesotan's in that law suit. I'm intervening to ensure justice prevails. Otherwise, the AG will use this case only for appearance."
"These black boxes not only deprive citizens' of their right to drive, but also wrecks lives and puts innocent people in jail. The Minnesota Attorney General, our state's chief prosecutor, chooses to protect the interests of a secretive, foreign company rather than fight for the constitutional rights of Minnesota citizens. Most alarming, is that the AG encouraged the cover-up of a fatally flawed breath machine, a contraption that the public, police and courts believed, and still believe, to be 100% accurate."
Ramsay demands the state shut down its breath testing program immediately. Until the state fixes the errors and a reputable, independent agency certifies the machines to be scientifically valid, reliable and accurate, the test results are worthless.

If the state is trying to use an Intoxilyzer test to take your license or put you in jail, contact Chuck Ramsay immediately. With his knowledge, experience and skill, he can restore your license, liberty and dignity.


Charles A. Ramsay
Attorney at Law
http://www.ramsayresults.com/CM/Custom/Contact.asp

CHARLES A. RAMSAY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
450 Rosedale Towers
1700 West Highway 36
Roseville, MN 55113
o: 651.604.0000
f: 651.604.0027
c: 651.336.6603

http://www.ramsayresults.com/