Noteworthy Cases: Criminal Law

Current noteworthy criminal law cases focus on issues concerning the discovery of the Intoxilyzer source code. Know a case that should be on the noteworthy case list? Contact us to let us know.

Discovery of The Intoxilyzer Source Code

• State v. Underdahl: No. A07-2293 (Underdahl III)(it is "not an abuse of discretion for a court to order discovery of the source code to a defendant who submitted evidence that an analysis of the source code may reveal deficiencies that could challenge the reliability of the Intoxilyzer and would relate to his guilt or innocence").
• State v. Underdahl: No. A07-2293 (Minn. App. 2008) [Underdahl II](reversing the district court's decision to grant discovery of the Intoxilyzer 5000EN source code on grounds that defendants did not establish that the code is related to their guilt or innocence, nor did they even establish that they need the code to determine whether it might be relevant).

• Excerpt: "respondents have not shown what an Intoxilyzer 'source code' is, how it bears on the operation of the Intoxilyzer, or what precise role it has in regulating the accuracy of the machine. Accordingly, there is no showing as to what possible deficiencies could be found in a source code, how significant any deficiencies might be to the accuracy of the machine's results, or that testing of the machine, which defendants are permitted to do, would not reveal potential inaccuracies without access to the source code."

• In re Commissioner of Public Safety, 735 N.W.2d 706 (Minn. 2007) [Underdahl I] (denying prosecutor's motion to prohibit discovery of the Intoxilyzer 5000EN computer source code because prosecutor did not prove that the code was clearly undiscoverable and that he had no adequate remedy at law).
• Kramer v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 706 N.W.2d 231 (Minn. 2005) (stating that the Intoxilyzer 5000 is entitled to a presumption of accuracy unless the defendant can prove that any minor malfunctions undermined the overall validity of the machine).
• Jasper v. Commissioner of Public Safety. 642 N.W.2d 435 (Minn. 2002) (explaining that the Intoxilyzer 5000 series consists of infrared breath-testing instruments that have undergone intensive testing, and that their results are admissible in court without additional expert testimony establishing their accuracy under Minn. Stat. 634.16).