Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Kentucky Blogs -> Kentucky Cases

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Kentucky

: Kentucky Cases

Disclosure of Intoxilyzer source code: HOUSE V. COM. (COA 1/18/2008)

By Michael Stevens

ADVERTISEMENTS

HOUSE V. COM.
CRIMINAL: DUI and disclosure of Intoxilyzer 5000's source code
2007-CA-000417
PUBLISHED: REVERSING
PANEL: ROSENBLUM PRESIDING; DIXON CONCURS; LAMBERT DISSENTS AND FILES SEP. OPINION
COUNTY: FAYETTE
DATE RENDERED: 01/18/2008

On discretionary review, CA reversed the District Court order granting of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and CMI, Inc.'s, (CMI) motion to quash a subpoena issued by House to CMI requiring CMI to produce the computer source code of its breathalyzer instrument, the Intoxilyzer 5000.

Because a flaw in the computer source code of the Intoxilyzer 5000 would be consequential to the accuracy of the reading intended to be relied upon by the Commonwealth, such evidence is relevant and admissible. Accordingly, requesting the computer code to test the verity of the readings produced by the instrument is not unreasonable. A subpoena may be quashed only upon a showing that compliance therewith would be unreasonable or oppressive. We do not believe the Commonwealth and CMI have made this showing. The burden of providing the information is minimal and the expense de minimis. Finally, a protective order should obviate any concern CMI may have with respect to protection of its source code.

Scott C. Byrd
Olgin and Byrd

Full post as published by Kentucky Cases on February 03, 2008 (boomark / email).