Intoxilyzer Maker Continues to Mislead Minnesota Courts

Posted On February 01, 2010 by Charles Ramsay

Last week, CMI, the Intoxilyzer 5000 manufacturer, attempted to defend its obstruction of Minnesota's DWI Source Code Coalition's efforts to review the breath test machine's software. In a letter to a letter to a federal court judge, CMI claimed it is willing to provide more access than asked for by any Minnesota driver charged with a DUI.

This is false. My law firm demanded full, unfettered access of the software on disc so that our experts can review it at their labs.

Because CMI and the state government secretly settled the federal lawsuit over our objections, we are limited to reviewing the source code at CMI corporate headquarters. CMI's onerous conditions have caused the cost of review to skyrocket and has slowed the process dramatically.

Interestingly, computer experts routinely conduct independent and adverse examinations of military and corporate source codes. The industry standard is to provide the software on disc to allow the experts to review the source code at their own labs. Why does CMI need protections greater than Coca-Cola, Microsoft and Apple Computer?

Please view our website at Ramsay Results

Please follow us on Facebook at Ramsay Results â?? Facebook

Please follow Mr. Ramsay via Twitter