In re Source Code Evidentiary Hearings in Implied Consent Matters
816 N.W.2d 525
Minn.2012Background
- Statewide challenge in Minnesota to Intoxilyzer 5000EN reliability after disclosure of source code.
- District court held numerical-value BrAC readings reliable and 240-software “deficient sample” results unreliable absent corroborating evidence.
- Consolidated proceedings assigned to a single judge to decide pretrial reliability issues.
- Appellants presented multiple experts arguing self-test, RFI detection, volume/precision defects; State presented countervailing expert testimony.
- District court denied exclusion of numerical-value results but limited “deficient sample” evidence from trials unless other evidence showed no source-code fault.
- Appellants sought discretionary review; court affirmed trial court rulings and denied challenges to admissibility under Minnesota evidentiary rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pretrial admissibility standard for numerically reported BrAC | Underdahl (appellants) argued for appropriate evidentiary standard | State argued for admissibility under 104 with proper burden | Preponderance of the evidence standard applied (not clearly erroneous). |
| Due process limits on presenting source-code challenges in individual trials | Appellants claimed due process required ability to present source-code challenges per case | State contends ample process and that challenges premised on source-code are overruled | District court did not violate due process; ample opportunity to challenge reliability existed. |
| Admissibility of ‘Deficient Sample’ results under 240 software | Appellants argued defective samples could be challenged as result of source code | State contends deficient samples may be admitted if supported by other evidence | Deficient-sample results inadmissible unless corroborating evidence shows not caused by source code. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 (U.S. 1987) (preponderance standard for preliminary admissibility questions)
- Minn. v. McCabe, 251 Minn. 212 (1957) (weight/credibility for expert testimony lies with jury)
- State v. Dille, 258 N.W.2d 565 (Minn. 1977) (reliability and procedure in chemical breath tests)
- Svoboda v. State, 331 N.W.2d 772 (Minn. 1983) (relevance and admissibility under Rule 401/402)
- State v. Quick, 659 N.W.2d 701 (Minn. 2003) (due process and right to present complete defense)
- Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 (U.S. 1971) (due process in license-revocation contexts)
- Goeb v. Tharaldson, 615 N.W.2d 800 (Minn. 2000) (Frye-Mack standard not controlling here)
- State v. Noren, 363 N.W.2d 315 (Minn. 1985) (three-part burden-shifting framework for breath-test reliability)