Ramsay Law Firm, PLLC

09/02/2026

𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝟰: 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗰𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝘀𝗮𝗶𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗱𝗲. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀 𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹 𝗮 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆.

For years, when defense lawyers asked for the source code for Minnesota’s breath testing machine, prosecutors and the Attorney General’s Office gave courts the same basic answer:

We do not have it.
We cannot get it.
We have tried.
We are acting in good faith.

BS.

The internal records tell a different story.

When courts started ordering disclosure of the source code, the government did not respond by asking, “How do we comply?”

Instead, there was a meeting.

And here is the part they do not want to talk about.

The meeting was requested by corporate counsel for the owner of the DMT source code. That lawyer was at the table.

Defense lawyers were not.

No one representing the people whose breath tests were being used in court was invited.

One internal email described the meeting as an informational meeting to help prosecutors “understand and navigate” the recent source code issues. The same email said Minnesota’s Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor was preparing a “kit” of materials AT THE REQUEST of Intoximeters, the manufacturer.

Read that again.

At the request of the manufacturer.

After the meeting, the written “next steps” were not to get the source code. They were not to demand that the manufacturer produce it. They were not to comply with court orders. They were not to work out a protective order so the defense could review it.

The written next steps were to keep communicating by email, circulate orders, transcripts, and affidavits, update a BCA affidavit, and have Intoximeter provide materials for distribution.

In short, they were not meeting to obtain the source code; they were there to keep it from us!

That is not a good faith effort to obtain the source code.

That is a coordinated effort to resist disclosure.

The government wants to use a software generated number in court. That number can decide whether a person is convicted or acquitted, whether a driver keeps a license or loses it, and whether the consequences are manageable or life changing.

But when the defense asks to examine the software behind that number, the government says, “Trust us.”

No.

Trust is not the standard.

Evidence is.

Discovery is.

Due process is.

If the government wants to use a machine’s number against a person in court, the defense has the right to test how that number was produced.

That is not a loophole.

That is a fundamental Constitutional right of due process.

08/28/2026

Another DWI Trial. Another Not Guilty.

We recently tried a serious second-degree DWI blood test case in Sherburne County.

The government thought it had a strong case: a scooter crash, an admission to drinking “four shots,” slurred speech, confusion, bloodshot and watery eyes, other observations the officer attributed to alcohol, and a blood test of .093.

The jury returned NOT GUILTY verdicts on both charges.

We think we did a good job. But after every trial, win or lose, we sit down and talk about what we could have done better. As always, we found ways we can be better next time.

In particular, we need to keep getting better at taking complicated scientific concepts and explaining them in a way that makes sense to regular people sitting in a jury box. Knowing the science isn’t enough. We have to be able to explain it.

Our goal is to do more than a good job by our own standards. We want to do a great job by any standard.

So why did the defense prevail, even though we know we can do better?

The State grossly overestimated the strength of its case, underestimated the defense, and was not prepared to address the reasonable doubts we raised at trial.

The blood was drawn more than three hours after driving. Our client had suffered a significant head injury. No standardized field sobriety tests were performed. The lab used an expired calibrator at the .08 level. And instead of testing the other sealed tube of blood, the lab tried to minimize the significance of the problem.

Before trial, the State questioned what there was to gain by taking the case to a jury. The jury answered that question with not guilty verdicts on both counts.

We’re happy for our client and proud of the result. Now we review the trial, learn from it, and figure out how to be even better next time.

Read the full story:

A Sherburne County jury found our client NOT GUILTY of both DWI charges after our law firm challenged the assumptions behind the impairment evidence, the timing of a delayed blood draw, and the reliability of the laboratory testing.

08/27/2026

Another Ignition Interlock Victory

We won an important ignition interlock case in Carver County.

The government claimed our client violated Minnesota’s ignition interlock program on two separate occasions because his device reported alcohol on his breath. The consequences were significant: the government sought to extend his time on ignition interlock by two years for each alleged violation.

While the government assumes a positive interlock reading is conclusive proof that someone consumed alcohol, the science says otherwise.

At the hearing, we presented forensic evidence showing that these devices are not specific to ethyl alcohol. They can respond to other substances on a driver’s breath and can also be affected by environmental contaminants. In other words, an interlock device can produce a false positive even when the driver has not been drinking.

The pattern of readings in this case was not consistent with the consumption and normal elimination of beverage alcohol. Instead, the evidence pointed toward an interfering substance or environmental contamination.

The Court rescinded the Commissioner’s order extending our client’s revocation.

A special thanks to forensic scientist Aaron Olson, whose expert testimony was critical in explaining the science behind these readings and why the device could not reliably establish alcohol consumption.

When the government wants to add years to someone’s ignition interlock requirement based on a machine, the machine’s readings need to withstand scientific scrutiny.

These didn’t.

The law firm you choose makes a difference. Go with the experts with the experience and know how to explain the scientific limitations of the instruments to judges and juries.

08/26/2026

Not Guilty x 2
DWI charges.
Sherburne County.

Grateful for a tremendous team effort!

08/14/2026

𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝟯: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝗮 𝗳𝗮𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝗼𝗳𝘁𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗹𝗮𝘄.

In the first two posts, we wrote about a court ordering the government to produce the source code for Minnesota’s breath testing machine, and about internal records showing the State’s coordinated resistance to disclosure.

This is why I care so much about source code and wrote this personally.

Minnesota has been here before.

The previous breath test machine had a fatal software flaw.

A BCA witness admitted last month the fatal flaw slipped through the BCA’s software validation.

He also admitted it affected hundreds of people.

Not people over the legal limit, even those UNDER the legal limit.

Those people were treated as if they had refused the test.

In Minnesota, refusal can be more serious than failing the test.

Think about that for a second.

A software problem caused people who were under the legal limit to be falsely treated as having refused the test.

The BCA learned about the problem and informed the manufacturer. The manufacturer gave the BCA a software patch.

The BCA decided not to install it.

The BCA chose NOT to notify the public.

I know because I was co-lead counsel on the original Minnesota source code trial team. I personally uncovered this problem while reviewing internal BCA emails during that litigation.

A BCA witness recently confirmed the key points: the issue was left unpatched, and he was not aware of any public notification about the problem.

That is why “trust the machine” is not enough.

That is why “the machine is approved” is not enough.

That is why “the government validated it” is not enough.

Like this breath test machine, the previous machine was also approved by the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety statewide.

And it still had a software flaw serious enough to falsely treat people under the legal limit as refusals.

The public eventually learned about that problem only because defense lawyers fought for the source code.

So when the government says, “You do not need the source code,” remember the history.

When the government says, “There is no reason to think there is a problem,” remember the history.

When the government says, “Just trust the number,” remember the history.

And when the government wants to use a software generated number against a person in court, the defense should be allowed to test the software behind that number.

This is not a loophole.

This is our Constitutional right to due process.

08/13/2026

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝘀𝗮𝗶𝗱: 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝘁.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝘀𝗮𝗶𝗱: “𝗼𝗯𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁.”

In our last post, we wrote about a recent Minnesota judge's court order requiring the government to produce the source code for a breath testing machine or risk losing the breath test result.

Here is why that order is a big deal.

Breath test results are generated by software. The software controls how the machine operates, how it accepts or rejects a sample, how it checks for problems, how it calculates the number, and how it reports the result.

The government uses that number against people in court.

So when courts started ordering disclosure of the source code, what happened?

The Attorney General’s position was that the government tried to get the source code from the manufacturer.

But the internal records tell a different story.

There was a meeting about source-code requests. The invite list included BCA/DPS personnel, Attorney General representatives, the Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor, prosecutors from around Minnesota, and the manufacturer’s lawyer.

The meeting was not open to the defense.

No public defenders.

No private defense lawyers.

No one representing the people whose cases would be affected.

And the notes from that meeting did not say: “How do we comply?”

They said:

“Prosecutors should object to the source code requests…”

The written next steps were not “get the code” but how to keep it from us.

The next steps were to keep communicating, circulate materials to fight future orders, update a BCA affidavit, and have the manufacturer provide materials for distribution.

That is the problem.

The government claimed it tried to get the code. But the internal records show a coordinated effort to keep it from us.

A judge saw the circular logic.

The court rejected the idea that a driver must prove a source-code error before being allowed to inspect the source code. The court called that a “paradoxical impossibility.”

Exactly.

You cannot require someone to prove what hidden software contains before allowing them to see the hidden software.

This does not mean every breath test is wrong.

It means something more basic:

If the government wants to use a machine’s number as evidence, the person accused must have a fair opportunity to test how that machine works.

That is not a loophole.

That is due process.

08/13/2026

"𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗱𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁."

That’s the order a Minnesota court just issued.

The government gets one more chance to produce the source code for the breath testing machine. If it doesn’t, the breath test result is suppressed.

We won that order.

Why does that matter?

Because breath tests are not just tubes, buttons, and printouts. They are software-driven machines. The software decides how the machine runs, how it accepts or rejects a sample, how it checks for problems, how it calculates the number, and how it reports the result.

That number is then used against people in court.

So yes, the defense should be allowed to look under the hood.

This order does not mean every breath test is wrong. It means the government cannot use software-generated evidence while keeping the software off limits.

That is not a loophole.

That is due process.

Next post: what the internal records show happened after courts started ordering disclosure.

08/09/2026

The maximum sentence for a DWI in Minnesota is 7 years, unless there’s a collision with injuries.

Eugene O. Trimble was the subject of two Wisconsin State Journal stories in April that looked at how the state’s criminal justice system treats repeat OWI offenders.

08/07/2026

Another constitutional victory.

Police got an anonymous call about an “intoxicated male” sitting in a truck outside a Rochester bar.

The caller didn’t identify himself and didn’t explain what he had seen that made him think our client was intoxicated.

An officer found the truck and initially thought it had no license plate. When he walked up, though, he saw the temporary registration in the rear window.

He had not seen any bad driving.

The DWI investigation continued anyway.

We challenged it, and the judge agreed there wasn’t enough reliable information to justify the investigation.

Motion to suppress granted.

Motion to dismiss granted.

Caleb deserves a lot of credit for this one. He wrote the winning brief and did a great job identifying the constitutional issue, researching the law, and putting the argument together.

We really enjoy seeing our younger lawyers do this kind of work and get results.

A good win for Caleb, a good win for our client, and a good day for the Constitution.

08/01/2026

🚨 A DWI ARREST MAY NOW PUT YOUR VISA AT RISK

The federal government is escalating the immigration consequences of DWI arrests.

The State Department has reportedly revoked the visas of five foreign nationals arrested for DWI, even though they had not yet been convicted.

For a visa holder or other noncitizen, a DWI arrest may threaten far more than a driver’s license or criminal record. It may also affect immigration status, international travel, and the ability to reenter the United States.

If you have been charged with DWI, call us before you plead guilty. The best opportunity to protect yourself may be fighting the charge and preventing a conviction.

Already convicted? It may not be too late. Depending on the facts, possible remedies may include:

• A motion to withdraw the guilty plea
• Post-conviction relief
• A claim that prior counsel failed to properly advise you about the immigration consequences of a plea

We defend the criminal case and can coordinate with qualified immigration counsel when necessary.

Do not assume this is “just a DWI.”

📞 Ramsay Law Firm
(651) 604-0000

Article in the comments.