Legal implications of faulty urine testing in DWI cases: An interview with Chuck Ramsay
In recent days, it has come to light that the Tri County Regional Forensic Laboratory, located in Anoka, Minnesota, improperly calculated the alcohol concentration in over 100 DWI cases involving urine testing. In about ten percent of those cases, individuals were not above the legal limit, but were improperly charged as such, based on the erroneous calculation.
In this interview, attorney Chuck Ramsay describes the criminal and civil consequences in DWI cases, and how the erroneous calculation may have impacted those charged. Ramsay is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and of William Mitchell College of Law. He is also a graduate of the prestigious Robert F. Borkenstein Course on Alcohol and Highway Safety: Testing Research and Litigation at the University of Indiana. In 2007. He is a member of the Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice (MSCJ) - a prestigious group of attorneys limited in number to 50 of the top criminal defense attorneys in the state. Chuck is also an active member of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), and the Minnesota Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (MACDL). A Certified Intoxilyzer 5000 operator, Ramsay has testified about the shortcomings of the Intoxilyzer 5000.
Throughout his career he has successfully challenged invalid and unreliable scientific testing methods. Most recently he intervened in the federal source code lawsuit and obtained access to the actual source code for the Intoxilyzer 5000. He is one of the three lead counsel of the Source Code Coalition. Chuck is also widely recognized at the leading attorney on attacking Minnesota's urine testing program.
Show Audio
This user does not have any blog entries
Logged in users may create a blog post under Show Host Info



