Other articles by Kim Smith:

Questions raised on defendant who's 'ill' Man gets 4 1/2-year sentence for March home invasionBorder agent convicted of rape, faces 5 to 14 years Ex-Tucson resident acquitted in '01 slaying outside strip club Border Patrol agent's rape trial begins Mom reads poignant letter at sentencing of son's killer Judge has advice for teen bound for prison Witness describes seeing his friend fatally shot Woman gets 6 years for DUI killing of Tucsonan Woman given 6-year term in fatal wreck NW of Tucson

Sales and Marketing
Ever-Ready Glass
Glass Sales Health Care
RLM Services, Inc.
Orthopedic Assistant-CMA Health Care
BENSON HOSPITAL
RESPIRATORY THERAPIST

Defense attorneys are neither entitled to the source code for the breath-testing machine commonly used in DUI cases nor to its software, the Arizona Court of Appeals based in Tucson ruled this week.

For more than a year, defense attorneys throughout the county have been arguing they should be given the "source code," and software used in the Intoxilyzer 8000.

The attorneys say the source code is needed to determine whether breath tests administered by the Tucson Police Department and the University of Arizona Police Department are accurate and reliable. (The Pima County Sheriff's Department and the Arizona Department of Public Safety take blood samples.)

Anomalies have arisen, but without having access to the inner-workings of the machine, defense attorneys and their expert witnesses are unable to determine the extent of them, said Attorney James Nesci .

Judge Deborah Bernini of Pima County Superior Court ordered the Pima County Attorney's Office to give the defense attorneys the source code in October 2008, but the Arizona Court of Appeals overturned her ruling in April.

The case went back to the Court of Appeals because Bernini did not believe the upper court's ruling pertained to the machine's software. On Tuesday the court ruled prosecutors don't have to hand over either the source code or the software.

Even if defense attorneys are correct that there have been anomalies, they have failed to prove those anomalies affect the reliability of the tests, Presiding Judge Philip Espinosa wrote.

"We are very pleased with the decision," said David Berkman, Pima County's chief criminal deputy county attorney. "We thought the issue was cleared up in the previous ruling by the court. This decision is going to impact thousands of cases across the state."

"This was just another way for people caught driving drunk to attack the evidence because the numbers don't lie," Berkman said.

Courts throughout the state have been waiting to see the end result of Pima County's battle with the defense attorneys, Berkman said. The ruling affects between 900 and 1,000 pending cases in Tucson City Court alone.

Nesci and Berkman disagreed as to whether the higher court established that defense attorneys have a "substantial need" for the source code.

Berkman said the court did not find they do; Nesci said it did.

Nesci said he and other defense attorneys intend to ask judges to dismiss the results of every test administered by an Intoxilyzer 8000 on a case-by-case basis. They will argue it is unfair to admit the test results when the courts have ruled they have a "substantial need" for the source code and yet have no means by which to get it.

"Everyone has a right to know how the machine works," Nesci said. "The state has outsourced its due process obligations to a privately held, for-profit, foreign corporation."

By foreign corporation, Nesci said he was referring to the fact the manufacturer of the machine is based in Kentucky.

Last year, Bernini ordered the manufacturer, CMI, to turn over the source code to Nesci.

Bernini later rescinded her order, noting she has no jurisdiction over CMI. It was then that the judge ruled prosecutors had better access to the software and she ordered them to get it and to turn it over.

Six other states have been battling CMI over the software: Minnesota, Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Tennessee and New Jersey.

The machine failed to meet precision and accuracy testing in Tennessee, Nesci said, so law-enforcement agencies there are prohibited from using it.