State v. Underdahl
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
CRIPPEN, Judge. *
In this consolidated appeal from pretrial orders granting defense motions for disclosure of the computer source code for the Minnesota Model of the Intoxilyzer 5000EN, the state argues that the district court abused its discretion in ordering discovery because respondents failed to show that the source code is relevant and in the state’s possession or control. The state asserts that due process does not require disclosure of the source code. Because respondents made an insufficient showing that the source code may relate to their guilt or innocence, we reverse.
FACTS
Thes…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- State v. ProfitSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1999
- Jasper v. Commissioner of Public SafetySupreme Court of Minnesota · 2002
- Underdahl v. Commissioner of Public SafetySupreme Court of Minnesota · 2007
- State v. ParadeeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1987
- Anderson v. FlorenceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1970
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. UnderdahlSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2009
- State v. UnderdahlSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2009