Minnesota BCA Memo Reveals Source Code Is Critical to Breath Test

Posted On April 20, 2008 by Charles Ramsay

The fight over the Intoxilyzer source code in Minnesota continues to become more heated. With the information I've obtained, the BCA agents behind Minnesota's breath test machine should become redder in the face -- due not only to the increasing heat, but in response to documents revealing more of the state agency's half-truths.

The BCA toxicologists and their supervisors have repeatedly testified -- under oath -- that the software is not important (among other misleading statements) to the outcome of Intoxilyzer tests. The well-intentioned, but mis-guided, assistants attorney general regurgitate the government propaganda to judges when arguing against drivers' motions for discovery of the software. Unfortunately some Minnesota judges apparently buy the government mantra and rule against drivers' request to analyze the source code, depriving them of fundamental constitutional rights (e.g., Right to Present a Meaningful Defense, Confrontation, and Due Process).

Amazingly, these judges make Findings of Fact that the software does not "relate to the guilt or innocence" of those accused of drunk driving.

Here is a memo the BCA once published on its website:

BCA Source Code Memo to Judges, Prosecutors and Police Officers

On February 4 the Office of the Minnesota Attorney General learned of the admissions contained in the memo. It was then promptly removed and edited, deleting the language that contradicted the government's standard line.

Here is a link to the most recent edition of the state crime lab's sterilized version.

Some judges continue to side with the Intoxilyzer's manufacturer and against Minnesotans. Why? To protect CMI's profits? To avoid the inconvenience of granting the requests? Grave concern over what defense experts will find behind the black curtain?

While we may never know their motives, we do know their justification is absurd.

1. The Intoxilyzer will not operate at all without the source code;

2. The source code controls operation of every aspect of the Intoxilyzer -- from ensuring minimum scientific safeguards are employed, to analyzing the breath sample and determining the alleged alcohol concentration;

3. The BCA acknowledges/ed that the source code is "important" to the machine's operation.

How can anyone find the software does not "relate to the guilt or innocence " of a driver when the BCA has admitted the source code is "important" to the Intoxilyzer's operation? The secret machine that determines the drivers' guilt?

If you have been charged with DWI/DUI or test refusal in Minnesota, you can prevail with the right attorney. Contact Chuck Ramsay right away to learn what the Attorney General and BCA don't want you to know.

Charles A. Ramsay

Attorney at Law



450 Rosedale Towers

1700 West Highway 36

Roseville, MN 55113

o: 651.604.0000

f: 651.604.0027

c: 651.336.6603