Minnesota Supreme Court Rules on Source Code
The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled on the issue of source code production in breath alcohol testing devices there. Read the full opinion here.
Bookmark: 
Disclaimer - By publishing this information on this Blog site, the Charleston, South Carolina Law Office of Timothy Clay Kulp is not claiming to represent any clients or cases mentioned here. The content provided is designed to inform readers and is not intended as legal advice.
April 30, 2009
March 28, 2009
The Ohio Supreme Court Speaks.
The Supreme Court of Ohio just reversed the conviction of a lady for DUI. Read why the court reached this conclusion.
On significance of the opinion is that administration of field sobriety tests and the scoring thereof, is not a subjective decision for the officer to make contrary to the belief of many officers and unfortunately, as prosecutors sometimes argue in the trial of a case.
This summary is taken from the Ohio Supreme Court website.
Continue reading "The Ohio Supreme Court Speaks. " »
Bookmark:
January 23, 2009
Roadblocks- The Rules Must Be Followed
Roadblocks or checkpoints are a tool used by the police in traffic enforcement. These procedures cannot be haphazardly applied or conducted at the whim of the police. Our courts have held that specific requirements apply when the police employ this form of contact with the motoring public.
As reported at bradentonherald.com a Manatee, Florida judge applied the law, which is the responsibility of the court to do. Read the article below:
Continue reading "Roadblocks- The Rules Must Be Followed" »
Bookmark:
January 22, 2009
Breath Testing and Source Code from A Scientific Perspective
Ed Brayton offers an interesting perspective about these issues in his blog at www.scienceblogs.com
Well worth reading. See the post below.
Continue reading "Breath Testing and Source Code from A Scientific Perspective" »
Bookmark:
January 16, 2009
A Nationwide Problem- No Independent Testing of Breath Test Machine Software
This article illustrates the point-no machine, particularly, one producing results used as evidence in criminal cases, should be free from independent examination for flaws.
As noted in the Bradenton Herald opinion page, these companies should be eager to resolve the issue as opposed to running from it.
Read the article for yourself....
Continue reading "A Nationwide Problem- No Independent Testing of Breath Test Machine Software" »
Bookmark:
January 14, 2009
Source Code Software Battle-Florida Rules That A Defendant's Rights Trump A Trade Secrets Defense!
A reported below, in the confusing world of infrared spectroscopic breath alcohol testing machines, an asserted defense by one of the many companies to court ordered production of the source code software for independent testing has been REJECTED.
Now, $2 million dollars in contempt fines against the device manufacturer, CMI, as pending.
After defenses of copyright, trademark and other stonewalling failed for some of the companies, the defense of trade secrets was waived like a Don't Tread on Me flag. Courts were sympathetic to a company's interest in preservation of that which, if learned by a competitor, could effect the companies financial well being.
But what trumps in a criminal case? The right to a fair trial or the health of a company which refuses to allow verification of the very indispensable component of the machine-software?
Well, for now, the issue in the state of Florida is resolved-the right to a fair trial in a criminal case prevails. See the story below.....
Bookmark:
January 5, 2009
Technorati Profile
Bookmark:
January 5, 2009
DUI Case Overturned -Maintenance Records Cannot Be Thrown Away
I have posted on this case before I believe. The case involves the same device used in South Carolina- the Datamaster.
The rule is old-you cannot cherry pick evidence.
South Carolina has a law requiring records maintenance:
56-5-2954. Breath testing sites; records of problems with devices.
ARTICLE 23. RECKLESS HOMICIDE; RECKLESS DRIVING; DRIVING WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR, DRUGS OR NARCOTICS
The State Law Enforcement Division and each law enforcement agency with a breath testing site is required to maintain a detailed record of malfunctions, repairs, complaints, or other problems regarding breath testing devices at each site. The records required by this section are subject to compulsory process issued by any court of competent jurisdiction in this State and are public records under the Freedom of Information Act.
Here is the story.
Drunken-driving case overturned by appeals court
Man may withdraw plea because of breath-test uncertainty
BY RUSS ZIMMER • ADVOCATE REPORTER • DECEMBER 27, 2008
Read Comments(16) Recommend(1)Print this pageE-mail this articleShare
NEWARK -- A controversial drunken-driving case is back in Licking County Municipal Court after a successful appeal, according to an appellate opinion, a move that might pave the way for other challenges to local OVI convictions.
The Fifth District Court of Appeals decided 3-0 that a New Albany man should have been allowed to withdraw his 2006 no-contest plea after information surfaced earlier this year that cast doubt on the validity of a breath test, states the opinion that was released Tuesday.
In April, local attorney Rob Calesaric filed a motion to reverse his client's plea after officials learned the Licking County Sheriff's Office had not been calibrating its BAC Datamaster properly, putting as many as 100 tests in doubt, Calesaric said. The Newark Law Director's Office, which is handling the prosecution, could not be reached for comment Friday.
Municipal Court Judge Michael Higgins rejected the motion the next month, writing in a judgment entry that the defense had failed to prove a manifest injustice -- the burden borne by defendants who ask to change their pleas after sentencing.
The Fifth District disagreed, stating in its opinion the test results should have been thrown out at the suppression hearing, which likely would have affected the defendant's decision to change his plea.
REGULATIONS NOT FOLLOWED
The deputy had testified during an October 2006 suppression hearing for the case at hand that he had followed all state regulations.
However, Calesaric filed a transcript from a November 2007 suppression hearing in a separate OVI case where the same deputy gives testimony about his procedure that shows it to be in direct opposition to some sections of the law.
A sheriff's office internal investigation in April found the deputy, who has been removed from that duty, had not followed state regulations, but had not done so maliciously, according to investigation materials.
Specifically, he had thrown away records of instrument checks that fell outside the acceptable range.
According to the Ohio Administrative Code, the BAC Datamaster must be checked for accuracy at least every seven days. This calibration check on the breath test machine is conducted by using an ethyl alcohol solution with a known value -- the equivalent of the 0.08 blood alcohol content, the legal limit in Ohio.
For the machine to pass the weekly test, it must register a reading within 0.005 grams of the listed value on the ethyl alcohol solution. If it falls outside that range, a new bottle of solution should be opened and tested, and if a failing result is again registered, the machine must be serviced.
All calibration check records -- pass or fail -- must be retained for at least three years, the law states.
The case will return to Higgins' docket, but Calesaric said he is uncertain what will happen next.
He said the case should be dismissed, but he admits there is some "wiggle room" in the higher court's ruling.
"What I would like to do is sit down with the law director's office and the court and fashion a game plan for where we need to go from here," he said.
MORE CHALLENGES POSSIBLE
The appellate court's decision could have far-reaching effects if those already convicted make the effort, Calesaric said.
"Anyone that was convicted of a breath-test case on the Licking County Sheriff's Office machine in that time frame (for two years before December 2007) needs to re-evaluate the validity of their case," he said.
People facing a felony charge for their fourth OVI in six years might be able to challenge a previous conviction if one was based in part on a BAC Datamaster reading from the sheriff's office, he said.
Other scenarios, with less at stake, exist where people could fight previous penalties, but Calesaric said it was more likely those who already have fulfilled the terms of their sentence will not push to have it overturned.
The defendant, who will not be named by The Advocate because the charge is a misdemeanor, has not served any jail time or completed a mandatory driver's intervention class, Calesaric said.
Russ Zimmer can be reached at (740) 328-8548 or razimmer@newarkadvocate.com.
Bookmark:
December 19, 2008
The BATMOBILE IS IN TOWN- Mt. Pleasant DUI Enforcement
While it will be announced publicly for purposes of a deterrent effect, here is the schedule for the use of the SC Department of Public Safety “Batmobile” or the truck containing breath testing equipment. The mobility of the device saves making a trip to the police station or the county jail where breath testing devices are kept.
REMEMBER, the law states that only those persons who are UNDER ARREST for DUI can be asked to provide a breath sample. You cannot be asked to provide a breath sample UNLESS you are under arrest based upon probable cause for the offense of DUI.
The schedule is:
Continue reading "The BATMOBILE IS IN TOWN- Mt. Pleasant DUI Enforcement" »
Bookmark:
December 9, 2008
Looks Like Ohio Will Go With the Intoxilyzer-NOT THE DATAMASTER AFTER ALL
State likely to OK DUI-testing device
Tuesday, December 9, 2008 3:04 AM
By James Nash
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
DispatchPolitics
DispatchPolitics.com
Complete coverage of national and state politics
The Daily Briefing
The Dispatch’s public affairs team sates the appetites of political junkies with bite-sized portions of the news and what's behind it.
Buckeye Forum
Veteran political reporters examine Ohio politics in this weekly podcast.
Some Ohio police could begin using a controversial portable device to test suspected drunken drivers as early as January after a legislative panel declined to sidetrack the device yesterday.
State safety officials want to buy 700 Intoxilyzer 8000 instruments to distribute to police agencies around Ohio. The devices can be used in the field, unlike stationary blood-alcohol testers.
The $9,000 devices have drawn legal challenges in other states that have used them, and critics in Ohio have urged the state public-safety and health departments to hold off on approving them.
On Dec. 1, the state Controlling Board reversed its decision to approve buying the Intoxilyzers and rescheduled the matter for Dec. 15.
Ohio Department of Public Safety spokesman Tom Hunter said he's confident that the Controlling Board will approve the purchase next week, which would put the devices in the hands of some police as early as January. He said a pilot program likely will begin in southwestern Ohio.
The Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review, a legislative panel, took no action against the Intoxilyzer yesterday. An association of local judges that had warned that using the device would clog courts with appeals dropped its objection yesterday. The judges association did not explain its reasoning.
Lance Himes, assistant general counsel for the Ohio Department of Health, said he doesn't expect the device to draw legal challenges in Ohio because state law forbids drunken-driving defendants from challenging the accuracy of the breath tester.
jnash@dispatch.com
Continue reading "Looks Like Ohio Will Go With the Intoxilyzer-NOT THE DATAMASTER AFTER ALL" »
Bookmark:
December 1, 2008
News of Breath Testing Wars Makes Its Way from Ohio to Charleston, SC
This is a story worth following.
Background. The manufacturer of the breath testing machine we use in the Palmetto State, National Patent Analytical Company, is located in Mansfield, Ohio. So, you would think that when Ohio decided to replace Datamaster devices (some of which are popping up for sale on Ebay for pennies on the dollar of what Ohio paid) the Datamaster would get due consideration. (Currently, 90 percent of the breath test machines in Ohio are Datamasters. Ohio did not opt to purchase the new model of the Datamaster, the DMT, which South Carolina has opted to purchase.)
No way. Mid-November, an Ohio Board approved without question spending $6.4 million to purchase the breath alcohol testing device made by a chief competitor to the Datamaster Located in Kentucky.
Continue reading "News of Breath Testing Wars Makes Its Way from Ohio to Charleston, SC" »
Bookmark:
November 25, 2008
DUI conviction consequences In Charleston and elsewhere in the state
The consequences of a DUI conviction are under appreciated. While each case outcome turns on the facts and circumstances of the case, the jurisdiction in which it is made, and unexpected consequences during the preparation of a case for trial, getting convicted of DUI is not simply being convicted of a traffic ticket. Read on...
Continue reading "DUI conviction consequences In Charleston and elsewhere in the state" »
Bookmark:
