Stay Curious. Stay Connected.
MailNewsletters♡Donate Now
Sign up
*Password must be at least 8 characters and contain one uppercase letter, one lowercase letter, one number and one symbol.
Already have an account?
By submitting, you consent that you are at least 18 years of age and to receive information about MPR's or APMG entities' programs and offerings. The personally identifying information you provide will not be sold, shared, or used for purposes other than to communicate with you about MPR, APMG entities, and its sponsors. You may opt-out at any time clicking the unsubscribe link at the bottom of any email communication. View our Privacy Policy.
Sign in to your profile
Forgot Password?
New to MPR News?
Welcome back
to news
for you
Reset Password

Enter the username on file and we'll send you a code to reset your password.

Still require assistance or not sure what your User Name is?
Welcome back
to news
for you
Email Verification

A verification code has been emailed to

Still awaiting the code?
Elizabeth Stawicki
St. Paul, Minn.

Court allows challenge to breathalyzer's reliability

Go Deeper.

Create an account or log in to save stories.

Log inCreate a free Account

Like this?

Thanks for liking this story! We have added it to a list of your favorite stories.

Show me!

The state Supreme Court says people charged with drunk driving have a right to a breathalyzer's source code, but only if they can prove it will aid their defense.

The ruling stems from the DWI charge against Timothy Brunner who wanted the source code to challenge the validity of his blood alcohol test.

Brunner provided evidence that analyzing the source code could reveal the Intoxilyzer's reliability and whether he was guilty of the charges.

The same court, however, ruled against another man who also sought the device's source code. The court said Dale Underdahl failed to show exactly how the source code could be related to his defense or why the code was likely to contain information related to his case.

Justices Alan Page and Paul Anderson dissented on Underdahl's case. They said a defendant has wide latitude in requesting such information and that district court judges also have broad discretion to grant such requests.