News & Events

September 19th, 2008 Press Release Regarding Source Code Cover Up between CMI & Minnesota Attorney General

Ramsay's Client Wins Implied Consent Hearing

Last week a Hennepin County Minnesota judge ordered the Commissioner of Public Safety to Reinstate Ramsay's client's driver's license. In yet another of a long string of DWI/DUI victories, Ramsay prevailed in a case involving issues he had previously used to beat Minnesota's unfair drunk driving laws:

1. Hennepin County's so-called "fast-track" DWI scheme is unconstitutional;

2. The test was unconstitutionally obtained under the United States Constitution's Fourth Amendment (Netland); and

3. The breath test result was not valid or reliable. Specifically,

       a. The Minnesota BCA has failed to establish sufficient minimum maintenance and calibration procedures;

       b. The driver's gastric esophageal reflux disease falsely elevated the breath test result;

       c. The Intoxilyzer 5000's software is broken, as demonstrated by the smoking gun (Email from BCA to CMI, dated 9/2006).

Ramsey County Minnesota Judge Finds Statute Unconstitutional; Dismisses Criminal Charges

Last week Chuck Ramsay convinced a Ramsey County judge to throw out criminal charges against his client. Ramsay's client was charged with violating a harassment restraining order. Arguing the statute was unconstitutional, Ramsay noted the law violates basic constitutional due process principles as it was vague, ambiguous and violates the rule of lenity.

The judge agreed and dismissed all the criminal charges. In doing so, the court determined the statute also runs afoul of the first amendment's fundamental right of freedom of speech.

MINNEAPOLIS-ST..PAUL DWI/DUI LAWYER CHARLES RAMSAY TO SPEAK AT DWI SEMINAR

The Minnesota Society of Criminal Justice, the premier Minnesota criminal defense lawyers organization, has announced the speakers and topics for its annual DWI defense seminar. On June 16, 2008 the following top Minnesota DWI/DUI lawyers will speak at the Northland Inn.

Ten of the group's leading members will be speaking on the following topics:

If you are a criminal defense attorney practicing in the area of DWI or DUI defense, you can't miss this seminar!

• RAMSAY SPEAKS AT NATIONAL SOURCE CODE CONFERENCE

For decades prosecutors and police have convinced judges and juries that alcohol breath tests accurately provide reliable incontrovertible proof that drivers have violated impaired drunken driving laws. Evidence is beginning to show, however, that the software or source code that runs every aspect of today's breath test machines are flawed and do not provide valid and reliable breath test results.

This is an emerging area of law and science. Every day new information is discovered to support some defense lawyers belief that the machines are not what they are cracked up to be.

In Minnesota, this issue has led to the dismissal of hundreds of DWI / DUI cases. The Intoxilyzer 5000, the breath test machine currently used in Minnesota, is very vulnerable. What cops, judges and juries once considered unbeatable, Ramsay and a handful of other attorneys have showed it is no more reliable than the old, bug-ridden, unreliable computer you discarded years ago.

Ramsay has the information needed to beat this black box.

He has repeatedly been winning cases - even when the blood alcohol concentration is well over the legal limit.

Minnesota drivers should not trust the government that the breath test machine is accurate. The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension has not been forthcoming with information, telling half-truths and failing to use good science to perpetuate the false trust and reliance the public has in the Intoxilyzer.

Based on Ramsay's success in this area, in January 2008 Charles Ramsay was asked to speak to other attorneys from around the country in Atlanta, Georgia. The event was the first of its kind, addressing the hottest issue in both Minnesota and nationally. Nationally renowned attorneys and legendary scientists addressed the following topics:

• Overview of Basic Breath Testing Device Electronics to Understand Why the "Source Code" Is So Important
• Overview of the Design Differences of the Four Breath Instruments Used in the U.S.A.
• Basic Lung Physiology and How Breathing Patterns and Mucus Can Affect a Breath Test Result
• The Strongest Legal Challenges; What has worked, Where We're Going
• Achieving Favorable Results Cases Across the United States
• Insight from the Breath Machine; Identifying the Achilles Heel in Your State's Instrument(s) In Order to Mount Your Challenges

The speakers included:

• Cliff Girard, Arizona
• Tom Hudson, Florida
• Charles Ramsay, Minnesota
• Sam Sachs, New Jersey
• Tom Workman - Massachusetts
• Tim Kulp - Florida
• Jan Semenoff - Canada
• Dr. Michael Hlastala - Washingtn
• Evan Levow, New Jersey
• Mary C. McMurray - Wisconsin
• William "Bubba" Head - Georgia

Ramsay continues to gather more information. Other attorneys contact Ramsay daily for updates and advice on how to beat the breath test.

NOW ...

As a result of the attacks on the source code, police officers around the state have begun to use blood and urine testing instead of the Intoxilyzer 5000. Ramsay has been probably the most successful lawyer in the state in recent times beating these tests as well. Contact Mr. Ramsay if you would like this nationally sought after attorney on your side.

• KSTP-TV INTERVIEWS RAMSAY FOR SOURCE CODE CRISES

Minnesota is losing grip on its once well regarded Intoxilyzer 5000 alcohol breath test machine. Hundreds of cases have the thrown out because CMI, the Intoxilyzer's manufacturer, refuses to allow anyone to peak behind the machine's black curtain. The Kentucky corporation refuses to disclose the software that runs every aspect of the breath test machine - even to Minnesota's Bureau of Criminal Apprehension - the agency under the Commissioner of Public Safety that controls the science and toxicology of Minnesota's DWI/DUI program.

The Attorney General has finally sued CMI to get what it purchased more than a decade ago. The purchase contract and the terms and conditions of the request for proposal, to which CMI agreed to comply in full, clearly gives control of the software to the citizens of Minnesota. In March, 2008, the AG filed suit in federal court.

Too little too late...

Once the suit was filed, several media outlets contacted Ramsay for information. KSTP TV, which broadcasts from the twin cities, interviewed Ramsay and broadcast the story around the state. Ramsay hopes the media will continue to educate the public. Prosecutors who see the public's loss of confidence in the Intoxilyzer may soon understand there is good reason not to trust this secret black box that has unjustly ruined lives and destroyed families. As long as our state government continues to premit CMI to profit at our citizens' expense, only criminal defense attorneys like Chuck Ramsay can protect those arrested for DWI/DUI. If you would like to be protected from an incompetent toxicology lab and a mutil-million dollar company's secret black box, contact Chuck Ramsay.

Soon ... articles revealing:

• Why the Minnesota BCA failed to establish any minimum routine preventative maintenance and/or calibration standards for the Intoxilyzer 5000?
• Why Minnesota's breath testing program has the lowest standards in the country?
• Why the Commissioner of Public Safety refuses to establish any minimum procedures to ensure that Minnesota breath tests are valid, reliable and accurate?
• Why is the supervisor of the BCA toxicology laboratory is afraid to review the source code (software) for the Intoxilyzer 5000?
• Why does the Minnesota Attorney General want the legislature to pass a law to prevent drivers from defending themselves in court at a trial, by making it a crime to present the source code as evidence to a judge or jury ?
• Why Minnesota is the only state in the country to use alcohol urine testing to prove a driver guilty of a crime?
• Why Minnesota BCA refuses to establish the most basic standards for urine testing, ignoring every peer-reviewed expert article in the world?
• Why the Commissioner of Public Safety continues to revoke licenses and prosecute drivers using urine testing when as one Judge recently described as a "absurd"?
• Why Attorney Chuck Ramsay is the only source of education for BCA toxicologists of peer-reviewed scientific articles?
• Why the Minnesota Attorney General continues to mislead judges, prosecutors and police officers that CMI (the Intoxilyzer Manufacturer) refused to give them the source code, when the BCA supervisory testified under oath that the BCA never had even asked for the source code?
• Why the Minnesota Atttorney General and the BCA do not voluntarily disclose the errors in the Intoxilyzer's program?

• MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS AGREES WITH RAMSAY: POLICE COERCE DRIVERS TO "CONSENT"

Supreme Court to Decide Constitutionality of Minnesota Implied Consent Law

In December 2007, the Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed with Roseville attorney Charles Ramsay that Minnesota's Implied Consent Law unconstitutionally coerces drivers to"consent" to blood, breath and urine alcohol tests.

In State v. Netland, the court of appeals overturned a drivers criminal conviction for DWI/DUI Test Refusal. A St. Louis Park arrested Netland for DWI/DUI. He read the Minnesota Implied Consent Advisory - approved by the Commissioner of Public Safety and the attorney general - which threatens to charge drivers with a crime if they do not waive their constitutional rights and provide an alcohol sample. Although the driver told the officer she preferred a blood test, believing it to be more accurate, but would blow into the Intoxilyzer 5000 alcohol breath test machine.

Although Netland attempted to give a "proper" sample for several minutes, the officer "deemed her to have refused" to give a breath test. As a result, the prosecutor charged her with DUI (driving under the influence of alcohol) and Test Refusal - a crime more severe crime than the DWI/DUI.

The jury acquitted her of DUI, but found her guilty of test refusal. The judge sent Netland to jail. Ramsay appealed. The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and dismissed the case.

The asked the Minnesota Supreme Court to review the case. It accepted and now Ms. Netland's conviction has been reinstated ... for now.

The Supreme Court will decide two issues: 1) whether it is fair for the state to coerce drivers to consent to a test by threatening serious criminal charges; and 2) whether constitutional due process permits the government to file criminal charges relying on a breath test machine that does not accept a driver's breath in cases where the driver appears to be giving a good faith effort.

The parties are briefing the issue for the court. Oral argument has not been set.

If you want a lawyer on the cutting edge of the law who literally with "take it all the way", contact Chuck Ramsay.