Phoenix Intoxilyzer Machines Failed on January 1, 2006 according to an article by Attorney Daniel Jaffe, Jaffe Law Firm. Many of the City of Phoenix's Intoxilyzer 5000 machines, manufactured by CMI, Inc., which are used to test a person's breath alcohol content in DUI cases failed. Apparently, the programmer of the machine's internal computer gave the machine a 100 year life span, starting in 1906. The machines failed because they did not know what to do at the beginning of the New Year.
The Intoxilyzer 5000 machines are also used in Kentucky. Defense lawyers in the states of Florida, Arizona, New Youa, and Nebraska have uncovered through discovery inconsistencies in the machines, but have been prevented by the courts and by CMI, Inc. from discovering whether the Intoxilyzer's software code contains errors which could produce erroneous results. CMI has refused to reveal the computer source code for its machine stating it was a trade secret. Before the Florida courts could rule on whether to suppress the alcohol breath test, the Florida Legislature amended 316.1932(1)(f)4 to restrict the information obtainable on the device from "full information" to only the "results of the test." The fact that some of Phoenix's Intoxilyzer 5000 machines failed on January 1, 2006 due to programming errors supports the theory that the machines may be flawed. Scientists subject all formal research to peer review and studies. Defendants in the majority of criminal matters are afforded their Due Process right to verify and contest evidence against them. Due Process requires the state to disclose to criminal defendants favorable evidence that is either material to the guilt of the defendant or relevant to the punishment to be imposed. Due Process also mandates that the state turn over evidence which also may be exculpatory in nature. Yet defendants charged with DUI claiming their innocence are frequently prevented from verifying the accuracy of the Intoxilyzer devices, in violation of their Due Process Rights. If the Intoxylizer devices were properly designed, properly programmed, and properly working, then why are CMI, Inc., the states, and the courts refusing to allow defendant's the right to check and contest the results?
Post by Nicholasville Kentucky, Criminal Defense, and DUI Attorney Stephen J. Isaacs.
There are many instances of malfunctioning breathalyzers, most stemming from police not calibrating them.
Phoenix DUI Attorney - Law Office of Michael Define
Posted by: Michael Define | April 02, 2007 at 05:56 PM
Machines fail all the time and it is very disappointing. Phoenix Criminal Lawyers will do the trick if needed.
Posted by: Phoenix Criminal Lawyer | March 14, 2007 at 12:15 AM