Charles A. Ramsay has been very active in exposing flaws in the DWI/DUI breathalyzer machines in Minnesot, according to his press release issued today.
How can you argue with his passion for righting this wrong, when innocent people are getting charged with a crime that is far more sever than DWI, itself? If the Intoxilyzer 5000 cannot analyze a driver's breath, the state charges that person with the crime of DWI/DUI refusal!
The state has been aware of the problem for more than two years. Despite having a corrected version of the software, one of Governor Pawlenty's appointed officials has prevented the state lab from fixing the broken source code.
Untrustworthy crime labs are becoming commonplace. This year, government crime labs in Detroit and the State of Washington have closed or under investigation because of corruption, tampering, and negligence.
Is Minnesota's BCA next?
How can you trust the people and machines that were made and trained to prove your innocence? Imagine ... your life is now in shambles, because a faulty computer says so.
Charles Ramsay is the lawyer that you need on your side. No other Criminal Defense lawyer knows as much about this vicious machine as he does. Chuck is your smart choice -- he gets results for you.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Defective Breath Test Software Jails Innocent Drivers
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Video of Chuck Ramsay's Minnesota Supreme Court Argument
Chuck Ramsay argued State of Minnesota v. Netland on September 10, 2008. The Minnesota Supreme Court must decide the constitutionality of the state's DWI-DUI statute which criminalizes refusal to submit to an alcohol test.
The issue is particularly difficult because Ms. Netland did not refuse to submit to a test. The breath test machine -- Intoxilyzer 5000 -- would not accept her breath sample. The police officer believed she was "playing" with the machine. Ms. Netland was persistent and demanded a blood test. The officer refused to give her either a blood or urine test.
Not willing to give up, Ms. Netland called an independent testing company while still in jail. The company collected her alcohol sample and had it analyzed. The result: .03 -- well under the legal limit of .08!
We now know that the source code was to blame. See the sections about Inferno and Smoking Gun. Unfortunately, state officials continue to use the same broken software. Innocent people continue to be hurt.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Court: New trial for Duluth cop accused of exploiting mother - TwinCities.com
The Minnesota Court of Appeals rejected a Duluth Trial Court Judge's order and said a complicated law is not unconstitutionally vague or ambiguous.
In the published 21-page opinion, the court finds there is no evidence to conclude the statute is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation. This is contradicted by the judge who discussed in great detail how the statute is vague.
The jurors also said the law was so comlicated, they did not understand how to interpret the meanings of some of the words and phrases. The Duluth News Tribune was able to speak with some of the jurors after the trial last fall.
"The way the law was written was so vague is why we couldn't come up with a decision,'' one jurror said. "... He was providing, and it didn't seem like Lois was out on the street hungry and homeless."
Juror Brent Gavin, 37, said "the law was very complex and, as lay people, certainly it was difficult to understand. In fact, it seemed not very clear-cut at all.'' He said jurors stumbled on the legal definition of "intent'' and what constituted Campbell's failure to provide for his mother's needs.
See the latest on this from the Pioneer Press.
