I have previously posted an index of the documents my firm submits in each source code case. Now that the Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled in State v. Brunner, upholding a trial court’s ruling to suppress an Intoxilyzer 5000 breath test result, other attorneys are contacting me for the documents used in that case.
I have posted a number of the Intoxilyzer Breath Test documents on my website.
The Supreme Court held the standard for discovery of the source code is that a driver must show the software is merely related to the defendant’s guilty or innocence. Brunner submitted only two substantive documents, which met that standard.
Here are links to the documents Attorney Derek Patrin used in State v. Brunner.
1. Written Testimony of David Wagner, Ph.D., Computer Science Division, University of California, Berkeley, before the Committee on House Administration, Elections Subcommittee, U.S. House of Representatives, March 15, 2007.
2. Base One Technologies, Report of Alcotest 7110 Mk III C Breath Test Machine to Special Master, Honorable Judge Michael Patrick King, in the case of State v. Chun, et. al., Courtesy of Attorney Evan Levow, http://www.nj-dmv-dwi.com/.
More photos of the Intoxilyzer 5000.
