Minnesota DWI Attorneys Entitled to Intoxilyzer 5000 Source Code Says State Supreme Court
Last week the Minnesota Supreme Court, in State v. Underdahl and Brunner, opined that the State of Minnesota must produce the Intoxilyzer 5000 EN source code if an individual charged with a DWI can show that the code relates to their guilt or innocence. Justice Meyer wrote for the majority.
Defendants Underdahl and Brunner sought discovery of the source code for the the Intoxilyzer 5000EN following DWI charges. In both cases, the trial court ordered the State of Minnesota to produce the code within one month, or the court would find that the breath test results were not admissible and dismiss the complaint against Underdahl and Brunner. The State of Minnesota appealed and the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed. The Minnesota Supreme Court elected to hear the consolidated cases of Underdahl and Brunner.
The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the Minnesota Court of Appeals decision to reverse the production order in Underdahl’s case. However, with respect to Brunner, the Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the trial court's order for State of Minnesota to produce the complete computer source code for the Minnesota model of the Intoxilyzer 5000EN.
The Supreme Court examined whether the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that the computer source code was relevant and otherwise discoverable under the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 9 provides:
Upon motion of the defendant, the trial court at any time before trial may, in its discretion, require the prosecuting attorney to disclose to defense counsel and to permit the inspection, reproduction or testing of any relevant material and information not subject to disclosure without order of court under Rule 9.01, subd. 1, provided, however, a showing is made that the information may relate to the guilt or innocence of the defendant or negate guilt or reduce the culpability of the defendant as to the offense charged.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has not previously stated what showing is required to support a trial court’s conclusion that information may relate to a defendant’s guilt or innocence in a DWI case. But in other criminal cases the Court has required “some plausible showing that the information sought would be both material and favorable to his defense.”
According to Justice Meyer, although broad discretion is given to district courts in discovery matters, the district court in Underdahl’s case abused its discretion in finding the source code relevant and related to his guilt or innocence. This was because Underdahl made no threshold evidentiary showing whatsoever; while he argued that challenging the validity of the Intoxilyzer was the only way for him to dispute the charges against him, he failed to demonstrate how the source code would help him do so. Justice Page and Justice Anderson dissented on the conclusion of the majority relative to Underdahl.
However, Brunner submitted source code definitions, written testimony of a computer science professor that explained issues surrounding the source codes and their disclosure, and an example of a breath-test machine analysis and its potential defects. Brunner’s submissions demonstrated that an analysis of the source code may reveal deficiencies that could challenge the reliability of the Intoxilyzer and, in turn, would relate to Brunner’s guilt or innocence. Therefore, Justice Meyer found that the district court in Brunner’s case did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the source code may relate to his guilt or innocence.
In an article authored in Minnesota Lawyer by associated editor Barbara Jones, she points out that this decision may mean that breath tests are a thing of the past. According to Dakota County Attorney Jim Backstrom. “I will be instructing officers to only administer blood or urine tests until we get further clarification."
Good news on some fronts. Urine tests are the least reliable of the three forms of testing. Most agencies opt for urine testing as opposed to blood tests.
