A disagreement in Minnesota between defense attorneys for persons charged with drunk driving and prosecutors and other government officials concerning the outcome of a judicial ruling centered on the accuracy of a blood alcohol breath-testing device underscores the enduring controversy attached to the reliability of the machine.

The machine, various versions of which have been used by police officers in states across the country, is the Intoxilyzer 5000EN, and it has been under siege in Minnesota, where nearly 4,000 DUI cases were put on long-term hold while its reliability was litigated in state court.

Defense attorneys had argued that the technology behind the device was outdated and that its software produced reading errors. A testing expert they retained confirmed that view.

The judge disagreed, ruling last week that the results "are reliable and unaffected by actual or alleged problems with the source code." He called for the thousands of cases in limbo to be returned to courts across the state for prosecution.

In doing so, though, many defense attorneys feel that he left a window open that allows for further challenges, based on his statement that reliability might continue to be a question in the minority of cases where the device reported a deficient sample.

Says one attorney: "What he means is it's good enough to be admitted into evidence, but we can still attack the results, and we have mountains of evidence to say this machine is not scientifically valid, reliable or accurate."

Prosecutors and the Minnesota Department of Public Safety disagree with that interpretation, even as many police departments within the state have stopped using the Intoxilyzer in favor of blood and urine testing.

Many DUI stops across the country daily feature problems with police conduct, sobriety testing and equipment reliability. A diligent DUI defense attorney can play an instrumental role in assuring a vigorous and knowledgeable defense.

Related Resource: www.myfoxtwincities.com "Minnesota Intoxilyzer Cases in Limbo Can Go Back to Court' March 9, 2011