Summary
The Minnesota Supreme Court reviews statewide challenges to the reliability and admissibility of Intoxilyzer 5000EN breath-test results based on alleged defects in the instrument’s source code. The court affirms the district court’s rulings that numerical breath-alcohol results were reliable, source-code challenges could not be presented in individual proceedings, and certain deficient-sample results generated by the 240 software required corroborating evidence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- What standard of proof applies to a preliminary question concerning the admissibility of evidence under Minnesota Rule of Evidence 104?
- Whether the district court abused its discretion in finding that Intoxilyzer 5000EN instruments reporting numerical breath-alcohol values were reliable and unaffected by the alleged source-code defects.
- Whether excluding source-code-based expert evidence from individual trials and hearings violated appellants' due process and fair-trial rights.
- Whether the district court properly allowed a deficient-sample report generated by the 240 software to be admitted when additional evidence or observations demonstrated that the deficiency was not caused by the software failsafe.
Holdings
- The preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applies when a court determines whether a preliminary condition of admissibility has been fulfilled under Minnesota Rule of Evidence 104.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Intoxilyzer 5000EN instruments reporting a numerical measured breath-alcohol value were reliable and unaffected by the alleged source-code defects.
- Excluding evidence addressing source-code challenges to the reliability of numerical Intoxilyzer 5000EN results from individual trials and hearings did not violate appellants' due process or fair-trial rights.
- A deficient-sample report generated while the Intoxilyzer 5000EN is running the 240 software is unreliable and inadmissible unless additional evidence or observations demonstrate that the deficiency was not caused by the software failsafe.
Key quotations
“Consequently, we hold that the preponderance of the evidence standard applies to preliminary questions concerning the admissibility of evidence.” (539)
“Because the district court extended ample process to appellants and the source code defects alleged at the evidentiary hearing are not relevant to the issue of whether the test results in question are valid, we conclude that the district court did not violate appellants’ right to due process and a fair trial” (541)
“we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when, in accordance with Minn. R. Evid. 104, it made a pretrial determination that Intoxilyzer 5000EN instruments that report a deficient breath sample while running the 240 software are unreliable unless there is other evidence or observations that demonstrate the deficient sample was not the result of a source code error.” (543)
Factual background
Minnesota routinely used Intoxilyzer 5000EN instruments to measure breath alcohol concentration in implied-consent and criminal DWI proceedings. After the State disclosed the instrument's source code, drivers challenged the reliability of numerical results and deficient-sample reports based on alleged defects involving self-testing, radio-frequency interference, volume measurement, precision, and the 240 software's sample-acceptance failsafe. Following a consolidated evidentiary hearing involving competing experts, the district court found numerical breath-alcohol results reliable but found 240-software deficient-sample reports unreliable absent additional evidence or observations showing that the deficiency was not caused by the software.
Procedural history
After discovery of the Intoxilyzer 5000EN source code, the Minnesota Supreme Court assigned a single district court judge to administer and decide pretrial source-code reliability challenges in specified implied-consent and criminal DWI cases. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court held that instruments reporting numerical breath-alcohol values were reliable, excluded source-code-based challenges to those results, and held that deficient-sample reports generated by the 240 software were unreliable unless other evidence showed that the deficiency was not caused by the software failsafe. The court of appeals granted discretionary review, and the Supreme Court granted accelerated review.