The Minnesota DPS provided a list of its "all-stars" for DWI enforcement. The DPS seems concerned more with quantity than with quality of service.
Any cop can stop a driver and make up a reason. This list recognizing cops with the greatest number of stops and arrests is disgusting. Thousands of Minnesota cops perform their jobs better than expected under harsh conditions. Yet they do so go about their duties putting justice and service to the public first, relegating their own interests secondary.
These officers are the true ALL-STARS!
They are polite with the public while ensuring that justice is served. These police officers understand sheer numbers don't ensure public safety. They testify truthfully, and take their jobs seriously. Unfortunately, they go unrecognized. This "honor" by the department of public safety discourages such bahavior, while encouraging injustice and promoting further distrust of our valuable peace officers.
Here is the DPS' press release:
From the Minnesota Department of Public Safety:
Minnesota 2008 DWI Cop "Enforcer All-Stars"
The 2008 DWI Enforcer All-Stars were selected based on DWI arrest results from 2007.
Greater Minnesota DWI Enforcer All-Stars — and Number of 2007 DWI Arrests
Officer Yermahne Berhane, Rochester PD — 74
Officer Tiffany Blaschko, Mankato Department of Public Safety — 36
Trooper Bradley Bordwell, Minnesota State Patrol — 43
Officer Brian Martin, Mankato Department of Public Safety — 51
Deputy Geoff Dowty, Sherburne County Sheriff’s Office — 109
Officer Todd Erickson, Elk River PD — 76
Officer John Fritz, St. Cloud PD — 46
Trooper Mark Hopkins, Minnesota State Patrol — 41
Officer Justin Hunt, Faribault PD — 56
Officer Scott Kostohyrz, Moorhead PD — 64
Deputy Charles Lahman, Cass County Sheriff’s Office — 56
Officer Joe Miketin, Hermantown PD — 39
Officer Andy Morgan, Grand Rapids PD — 35
Officer Cory Schmitz, New Prague PD — 41
Officer Joseph Swenson, Lake Crystal PD — 17
Deputy Scott Wolfe, Blue Earth County Sheriff’s Office — 35
Metro DWI Enforcer All-Stars — and Number of 2007 DWI Arrests
Trooper Adam Flynn, Minnesota State Patrol — 208
Officer Richard Gabler, Brooklyn Center — 57
Officer Todd Groves, Eden Prairie PD — 63
Officer Josh Hunter, Corcoran PD — 45
Officer Joel Horazuk, Apple Valley PD — 49
Officer Adam Jacobson, Coon Rapids PD — 113
Trooper Kyle Klawiter, Minnesota State Patrol — 196
Officer John Kolar, Shakopee PD — 54
Officer Scott Langner, Maplewood PD — 82
Officer Nicki Marquardt, Shakopee PD — 67
Officer Justin Parranto, Inver Grove Heights PD — 69
Deputy Tim Samuelson, Dakota County Sheriff’s Office — 50
Officer Fran Schmitz, Woodbury PD — 86
Officer Richard Schwab, South St. Paul PD — 86
Officer Darcy White, Prior Lake PD — 63
Officer Steve Wuorinen, Minneapolis PD — 60
The state patrol said it is providing even more DWI / DWI Patrols on Minnesota Roads Throughout July.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Minnesota Names Police Officers with Most DWI Arrests
Friday, June 6, 2008
Minnesota AG Encouraged Concealment of Intoxilyzer's Critical Defects
In March 2008, The Minnesota Attorney General filed a federal suit against CMI on behalf of the Minnesota’s Commissioner of Public Safety. The suit alleges that CMI breached the contract for the sale and maintenance of a fleet of evidentiary breath test instruments to be used by the State, for the purpose of investigating and prosecuting drunk driving cases.
CMI agreed in the contract to sell and maintain the fleet of instruments and to release the software when ordered by the courts. CMI also expressly agreed that any intellectual property material originating and arising out of the contract would become the sole property of the State. CMI breached both of those obligations.Ramsay believes the state filed suit only in response to judges’ complaints of the attorney general’s lackluster response to aggressive litigation by leading criminal defense attorneys demanding access to the software.
Ramsay states that as early as 2006, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) knew its 200 plus Intoxilyzers were broken. Minnesota’s Intoxilyzer 5000 displays a driver’s alcohol results on its LED readout, yet sporadically records a higher result on the final test record. The state discovered this and other fatal defects after hastily installing the current Intoxilyzer software in 2005. The BCA documented the critical errors in an email it sent to CMI.
Ramsay labeled the document the “smoking gun,” which evidences the need for independent review of the Intoxilyzer’s software.
Despite the critical flaws, the State continues to use the bug-riddled software as the foundation of its breath testing program. According to the BCA’s 2006 annual report, the state tested nearly 34,000 citizens with the current Intoxilyzer and software.
The BCA has not fixed the broken machines on the advice the AG’s office according to one BCA source. The AG, fearing an escalation in the so-called source code challenge, advised the BCA to wait until the software challenge had lost momentum. Concealing the information was essential to winning the software battle against defense attorneys.
Ramsay is intervening on behalf of four of his clients in the federal lawsuit the state filed against the manufacturer. “Its clear the AG will not protect the rights of Minnesotan’s in that law suit. I’m intervening to ensure justice prevails. Otherwise, the AG will use this case only for appearance.”
“These black boxes not only deprive citizens’ of their right to drive, but also wrecks lives and puts innocent people in jail. The Minnesota Attorney General, our state’s chief prosecutor, chooses to protect the interests of a secretive, foreign company rather than fight for the constitutional rights of Minnesota citizens. Most alarming, is that the AG encouraged the cover-up of a fatally flawed breath machine, a contraption that the public, police and courts believed, and still believe, to be 100% accurate.”Ramsay demands the state shut down its breath testing program immediately. Until the state fixes the errors and a reputable, independent agency certifies the machines to be scientifically valid, reliable and accurate, the test results are worthless.
If the state is trying to use an Intoxilyzer test to take your license or put you in jail, contact Chuck Ramsay immediately. With his knowledge, experience and skill, he can restore your license, liberty and dignity.
Charles A. Ramsay
Attorney at Law
http://www.ramsayresults.com/CM/Custom/Contact.asp
CHARLES A. RAMSAY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
450 Rosedale Towers
1700 West Highway 36
Roseville, MN 55113
o: 651.604.0000
f: 651.604.0027
c: 651.336.6603
http://www.ramsayresults.com/
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Judges Find Washington Crime Lab Untrustworthy
Look what my brothers and sisters have accomplished in Washington!
Through hard work, perseverance and a little help from the government, DWI - DUI lawyers have exposed the crime lab. Judge's found the scientists' work to be so unreliable, they threw out hundreds of tests.
The Minnesota BCA may be headed the same direction. Stay tuned for critical DWI-DUI update of the Minnesota Intoxilyzer 5000 software update! Anyone with a DWI in Minnesota should be prepared for information which may help them beat the breath test machine!
Charles A. Ramsay
Attorney at Law
Charles@RamsayResults.com
CHARLES A. RAMSAY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
450 Rosedale Towers
1700 West Highway 36
Roseville, MN 55113
o: 651.604.0000
f: 651.604.0027
c: 651.336.6603
www.RamsayResults.com
Sunday, April 20, 2008
156 DUI Cases Dropped Due To Cop's Alleged Lying
Officer Accused Of Falsifying Police Reports For DUI Suspects
CHICAGO (STNG) ― The Cook County state's attorney's office has dropped more than 150 DUI cases in which indicted Chicago cop John Haleas was the arresting officer, officials said.In all, 156 misdemeanor DUI cases have been dropped, said John Gorman, a spokesman for the state's attorney. In some of the cases, non-DUI charges against the defendants remain, he said.
Haleas, 37, faces felony charges of perjury, official misconduct and obstruction of justice for allegedly lying and falsifying reports about a DUI arrest in April 2005. According to a grand jury indictment, Haleas falsely reported he gave a defendant various field sobriety tests.
Haleas also has been sued in federal court by a man he arrested.
Haleas worked out of the Grand Central District. When questions about his arrests arose last year, the state's attorney's office dropped about 50 cases and said about 500 were being reviewed.
The Schaumburg-based Alliance Against Intoxicated Motorists honored Haleas three times as the police officer with the most DUI arrests in Illinois. He has been stripped of his police powers and is scheduled to appear in court April 25.
(Source: Sun-Times News Group Wire © Chicago Sun-Times 2006.
Charles A. Ramsay
Attorney at Law
Charles@RamsayResults.com
CHARLES A. RAMSAY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
450 Rosedale Towers
1700 West Highway 36
Roseville, MN 55113
o: 651.604.0000
f: 651.604.0027
c: 651.336.6603
www.RamsayResults.com
2003 Tennesse Study Reveals Truth About Minnesota's DWI Program
MINNESOTA BCA: INCOMPETENCY OR CHICANERY?
The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension claims the software is not relevant or necessary when ascertaining whether a particular breath test machine gives results that are valid, reliable and accurate.
The Supervisor of the BCA Toxicology Division testified under oath before me that its not necessary to review the software of any instrument when evaluating whether it gives reliable, valid and accurate results. In fact, he's never heard of such a thing.
The person is either incompetent or continues to obscure the truth. See, for example, the 2003 Tennessee breath machine validation studies (Documenting that evaluation of the software is "critical" in evaluating breath test instruments).
The Tennessee studies provide additional insight into Minnesota's incompetence and/or deceitfulness. The BCA and their lawyers claim they are not sure whether any manufacturer would disclose software as part of validation studies in their most recent version of their source code propaganda.
Again, the BCA is either incompetent or less than forthcoming. The Tennessee study again documents that at least one manufacturer disclosed the software for validation studies.
Below the document is the text:
<<RFP Tenn and Validity Studies_Page_06 C.jpg>>
To: Samera Zavaro, Special Agent Forensic Scientist Supervisor
From: David Ferguson and Robert Marshall, Special Agent Forensic Scientist's
Subject: Evaluation of the Intoximeter EC/IR II, CMI Intoxilyzer 8000 and Drager Alcotest 7110 Breath Alcohol Instrument
Date: September 12, 2003
The Breath Alcohol instruments listed above were evaluated for accuracy, precision, and performance. Accuracy and precision were evaluated using a series of standard ethyl alcohol solution and a series of standard ethyl alcohol solutions containing various interferants. Performance was evaluated by placing each instrument in a field environment and using DC current in a vehicle.
The Intoximeter EC/IR II and the Drager Alcotest 7110 yielded satisfactory results on the accuracy, precision and performance tests. The CMI Inotoxilyzer 800 did not yield satisfactory results.
The controller software, a requirement of the TBI Forensic Services Division specifications is a critical part of the evaluation. Intoximeter Inc., has submitted its controller software system and has satisfied this requirement.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the Intoximeter EC/IR II instruments and software system be approved for use in the State of Tennessee's Breath Alcohol Program. The CMI Intoxilyzer 8000 and Drager Alcotest MK-7110 are not recommended for use at this time pending evaluation of their software system.
Procedure
Standard Solutions: Each instrument was evaluated using a series of ethyl alcohol standards ranging from 0.02gm% to 0.30gm% (0.02,0.05,0.08,0.10,0.20, and 0.30) prepared and analyzed with NIST Traceable material by Guth Laboratories. The NIST Traceable were certified by Guth Laboratories. Solutions containing inteferants: Each instrument was evaluated using a series of ethyl alcohol solution containing the following interfering substances: Methanol, Isopropul Alcohol Toluene and MIBK (methylisobutylketone) Guth Laboratories alcohol-water bath simulators were also utilized at this time. Mobile Using DC Current: The breath instruments were evaluated using a series of Ethyl Alcohol standards ranging from 0.02gm% to 0.30gm% and (0.02,0.05,0.08,0.10,0.20,0.30) generated by alcohol-water bath simulators certified by Guth Laboratories. Several human breath blanks were utilized. No RFI was noted.Results
Results of the evaluation using standard solutions demonstrated the Intoximeter EC/IR II and Drager Alcotest MK-7110 were within the NHSTA specifications of plus or minus 0.005gm% or 5% whichever is greater. The CMI Intoxilyzer 8000 did not meet the NHSTA specifications.A footnote: The 2003 Tennessee study found that CMI's Intoxilyzer 8000 was not valid, reliable or accurate.
Hmmmmm......
Contact Charles Ramsay immediately for more information about Minnesota's problematic breath testing program.
Charles A. Ramsay
Attorney at Law
Charles@RamsayResults.com
CHARLES A. RAMSAY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
450 Rosedale Towers
1700 West Highway 36
Roseville, MN 55113
o: 651.604.0000
f: 651.604.0027
c: 651.336.6603
www.RamsayResults.com
Minnesota BCA Memo Reveals Source Code Is Critical to Breath Test
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
Charles@RamayResults.com
CHARLES A. RAMSAY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
450 Rosedale Towers
1700 West Highway 36
Roseville, MN 55113
o: 651.604.0000
f: 651.604.0027
c: 651.336.6603
www.RamsayResults.com
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Driver Loses Source Code Appeal; Attorney Fails to Make Minimal Showing
The Minnesota Court of Appeals rejected a driver's appeal to order the state to disclose the "source code" which operates the state's breath test machines. See State v. Olcott, (Minn. Ct. App., 4/15/2008).
In emphasizing the low standard on the driver to meet his burden, it noted the driver's attorney did nothing more than make a bald assertion that the source code is related to the case.
"We have no quarrel with Olcott’s underlying propositions that an accused should be allowed to examine the evidence against him and, generally, he should be allowed to discover information that could lead to admissible evidence. But we fully agree with the district court that Olcott has offered only a 'bald assertion' and legal arguments in support of his discovery requests."We find nothing in the district court record that even marginally attempts to satisfy the rule 9 'showing' requirement. Olcott has not attempted to show what a 'source code' is; or how it fits into the operation of the Intoxilyzer; or what its precise role is in regulating the accuracy of the machine; or what possible deficiencies could be found in a source code; or how significant any deficiencies might be to the accuracy of the machine’s result; or whether testing of the machine (which he is permitted to do) cannot reveal potential inaccuracies without also knowing the source code. Olcott seems to suggest that his request for the source code needs no technical explanation, that the thing speaks for itself, and that his mere assertion makes the need for the source code obvious. But this is the realm of a type of expertise beyond ordinary knowledge. Olcott implicitly concedes that fact when he argues that even the expert Intoxilyzer operators cannot testify to the method of producing the result. By presenting only argument on the discovery issue, Olcott left the district court, and this court, to speculate.
Because Olcott has made no 'showing' whatsoever of how the Intoxilyzer 5000EN source code relates to his guilt or innocence, negates his guilt, or reduces his culpability, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Olcott’s motion to compel production of the source code for the machine.
Affirmed.
PRACTICE TIP:
The Minnesota Court of Appeals has recognized the standard is very low. The burden is easily met merely be presenting documentation within the public domain. The manufacturer (CMI), and the state (Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA)) agree the software operates the Intoxilyzer and every essential function.
For example, look at CMI's Intoxilyzer 5000 Brochure.
CMI notes the importance of the software:
"A multiprocessor system employing a microprocessor controls the general operation of the instrument from information display to printer operation, keyboard interface, and electro-mechanical functions. A separate microcontroller is used for optical signal processing which increases the system’s signal handling.
"The microprocessor includes 56K EPROM (erasable programmable read only memory), 32K of battery-backed RAM and 8K of Scratch RAM (Random Access Memory). Additionally, the microcontroller has a separate 64K EPROM available and a separate 8K scratchpad RAM. Every aspect of operation, from displaying and printing of information to the basic electrical and mechanical functions, is micro-computer controlled.
Also click here to see the BCA's recent posting (Admitting "The source code is important because it determines what programming is loaded into the Intoxilyzer – basically, it tells the Intoxilyzer how to interpret the physical data it receives when someone blows into the device.").
Finally, look at Tennessee's Validity Studies where it calls the software "critical" to the evaluation of the product.
To ensure your rights are protected, turn to a profession who knows how to win. Contact Chuck Ramsay, Today!
Charles A. Ramsay
Attorney at Law
Charles@RamsayResults.com
CHARLES A. RAMSAY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
450 Rosedale Towers
1700 West Highway 36
Roseville, MN 55113
o: 651.604.0000
f: 651.604.0027
c: 651.336.6603
